F 


ANTI- 
IMPERIALISM 


.'    /  "-1 


BY 

MORRISON  I.  SWIFT. 


PRICE,    lO  CENTS. 


i.os  angei.es 

PUBLIC  OWNERSHIP  REVIEW 

1899. 


CONTENTS. 


I.     Imperialism  to  Bless  the  Conquered,  ...       i 

II.     Imperialism  for  the  Sake  of  Mankind,     .     .       9 

III.     Our  Crime  in  the  Philippines 34 


Los  Angeles  Printing  Co., 
no  S.  Broadway. 


CHAPTER  I. 
Imperialism  To  Bless  the  Conquered, 


Tl  ^  demand  for  absorbing  the  Philippines  is  so  gross 
a  departure  from  American  principles,  a  revolution  of 
our  national  purposes  so  singular  and  complete,  that 
it  Ij  well  to  probe  down  to  its  real  cause.  Three 
mod  /es  are  offered  to  sanction  the  change  :  Blessing 
fo-  'he  peoples  absorbed.  Duty  to  the  World,  and 
"^  larkets.  It  can  be  shown  that  the  first  two  are  but 
.urms  of  the  third— avarice  for  markets.  The  commer- 
cial market-seekers  are  adroitly  using  philanthropic 
sentiments  to  win  the  philanthropic  over  to  their  side 
in  order  to  secure  new  fields  to  exploit. 

I,et  us  realize  the  reach  of  this.  It  is  the  culmin- 
ating stroke  of  Plutocracy.  Even  so  late  as  a  few 
years  ago  it  could  not  have  been  safely  proposed.  But 
Plutocracy  is  master  now,  and  makes  no  pause.  Im- 
perialism cancels  the  Constitution  and  takes  the  life 
of  popular  government :  the  very  ends  that  plutocracy 
aims  at.  The  fact  of  plutocracy  has  worked  enfeeble- 
ment  in  the  general  mind.  Expansion  will  create  the 
formerly  dreaded  standing  army:  Plutocracy  fore- 
sees and  desires  it,  universal  monopoly  will  need  an 
army  against  the  people.  Would  this  army  have  been 
voted  five  years  ago  ? 

Let  us  consider  the  three  grounds  for  expansion. 
Blessing  to  the  peoples  annexed.  The  leading  feature 
of  the  blessing  will  be  our  capitalists.  Do  capital- 
ists go  out  to  bless  ?     We  have  had  some  opportunities 


2  TO    BLESS   THE   COXOUERED. 

lo  lift  the  lowly.  Here  are  our  southern  blacks.  Our 
blessing  there  takes  the  form  of  denials  of  the  ballot 
and  of  ballot-box  massacres.  What  degree  of  friendly 
assimilation  have  we  achieved  ?  Is  there  not  ground  to 
fear  a  general  race  war  one  of  these  days  ?  Whites  of 
opposite  political  creeds  are  obliged  to  burj'-  their  di- 
vergences and  vote  together  to  prevent  negro  domin- 
ation. Current  events  in  the  South  indicate  that  there 
is  to  be  no  compromise  : 

"The  North  Carolina  Democrats  are  trjnngto  find  a 
way  to  constitutionally  disfranchise  the  negro.  A  new 
election  law  will  be  passed  next  year,  and  the  Demo- 
crats of  the  State  are  endeavoring  to  frame  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  restricting  the  suffrage  as  the  result 
of  the  race  strife  at  the  last  election.  These  Democrats 
are  studying  the  bill  for  the  annexation  of  the  Hawa- 
iian islands.  That  bill  does  not  grant  universal  suf- 
frage. By  imposing  property  qualifications,  it  prac- 
tically disfranchises  the  natives,  and  places  the 
government  in  the  hands  of  the  whites  and  a  few 
others.  The  North  Carolina  Democrats  say  if  Congress 
can  constitutionally  adopt  this  legislation  in  independ- 
ent States,  they  can  do  the  same." 

This  state  of  things  does  not  suggest  that  we  are 
gifted  to  raise  inferior  peoples.  It  would  be  a  delicate 
question  to  ask  if  we  shall  prepare  the  Cubans  and 
Filipinos  for  self-government — the  high  purpose  of 
which  our  statesmen  are  ever  speaking — by  ballot 
restrictions  denying  them  a  vote.  But  why  not?  We 
do  it  with  "childish"  races  nearer  home.  And  if  we 
refuse  them  the  practice  of  self-government  how  many 
centuries  will  it  take  them  to  learn  it? 

Our  Indians,  too,  are  a  second  lesson.  Our  rule  of 
them  has  bloomed  in  robbery  and  progressive  extermin- 
ation, and  behind  the  swindling  officials  have  stood 
the  moral  and  military  forces  of  the  nation.  We  may 
say  that  it  is  good  for  the  world  that  the  breath  of  civ- 
ilization exterminates  such  races — some  assert  this — 
but  it  shakes  the  argument  of  philanthropy.  Is  it  good 
for  them  to  be  exterminated  ?  Does  blessing  them  mean 
exterminating  them  ?     Is  this  what  we  mean  by  saying 


TO   BLESS   the;   CO.NOUiJRED.  3 

that  we  shall  lift  them  up  and  confer  free  institutions 
upon  them?  Wh)'  not  be  clear  on  this  point  before 
we  go  out  to  reclaim  the  Filipinos  ?  We  should  then 
prove  to  them,  in  the  altered  words  of  William  McKiu- 
\ey,  '  that  the  mission  of  the  United  States  is  one  ot 
benevolent  extermination,  substituting  the  mild  sway 
of  civilizing  extinction  for  arbii;rar5'-  rule.'  They  have 
a  very  searching  right  to  know  what  form  our  blessing 
is  to 'take,  one  would  think,  and  to  decide  whether 
they  care  to  be  blessed  in  our  v/ay. 

There  is  another  side— the  effect  of  extermination 
upon  the  exterminator.  It  may  be  well  meant,  but  is 
the  consciousness  of  dealing  civilizingly  with  lower 
human  beings  in  order  to  obliterate  them  without  crime 
morally  healthy  ?  Surely  not.  Slave  owners  were  de- 
graded by  their  relation  to  the  slave ;  it  made  them 
brutal  in  character  and  domineering  in  other  relations 
of  life.  Any  form  or  degree  of  domination  has  a  like 
tendency.  It  fosters  the  degrading  sense  of  superi- 
ority, contempt,  arrogance,  aloofness,  the  domineering 
spirit,  all  of  which  canker  the  superior  man's  nature. 
It  prevents  the  growth  of  brotherliness— the  highest 
idea  of  civilization  ;  of  equality— the  basis  of  demo- 
cratic evolution  ;  of  the  American  spirit— the  essence  of 
the  American  spirit  being  equal  opportunity  of  develop- 
ment for  all. 

The  influence  of  an  alien  race  upon  the  growth  of 
American  liberty  and  the  success  of  our  weighty  trial 
in  popular  government  is  therefore  grave.  We  ought 
to  see  from  experience  that  we  have  no  fitness  for  gov- 
erning, assimilating,  or  uplifting  '  derelict '  races,  and 
that  contact  with  them  in  the  alleged  attempt  to  do  so 
depraves  us. 

Hawaii  carries  the  demonstration  another  step. 
Have  we  consulted  the  will  of  the  native,  the  real 
Hawaiian?  No.  We  have  listened  to  the  voice  of 
American  capitalists  who  grasped  the  Hawaiian  govern- 
ment and  insolently  claimed  to  represent  the  popula- 
tion of  the  islands.  The  will  and  well-being  of  the 
native  have  influenced  our  decisions  no  more  than  the 
will  of  the  beasts  roaming  the  Hawaiian  jungles. 


4  TO    BIJCSS    THE    CONQUERED. 

With  this  record  our  solemn  coucern  for  the  good  of 
the  native  Filipinos  is  hollow  and  fraudulent.  Tnere 
will  be  grandiloquent  vaporings  from  the  pulpit,  press 
and  platform,  from  Congress  and  President, — already 
their  pious  sound  has  encircled  the  globe — but  the 
shaping  force  below  rhetoric  and  piety  will  be  financial 
desire.      Nothing  will  have  any  real   weight  but  that. 

This  argument  of  our  duty  to  lower  races  has  been 
cunningly  handled  by  those  whose  motive  is  commer- 
cial gain.  They  first  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  the 
nation,  but  when  conscience  and  humane  instincts 
have  been  roused  and  the  people  have  adopted  their 
counsels  for  the  good  of  humanity,  another  side  of  the 
case  is  brought  out  to  congeal  the  public  conscience 
again  and  restore  apathy,  whereupon  the  commercial 
class  can  go  ahead  and  do  what  they  please.  They 
have  gained  their  point,  the  laws  they  wanted  have 
been  passed,  and  the  people  forget  to  repeal  them  when 
the  commercialists  correct  themselves  and  announce 
that  humanity  in  that  instance  would  be  wasted.  To 
make  the  case  concrete  apply  it  to  Cuba  or  the  Philip- 
pines. The  first  act  dwells  with  ostentation  upon  the 
inhumanity  of  leaving  a  meritorious  race  in  galling 
servitude :  a  passion  of  sympathy  is  stirred  and  the 
oppressed  are  freed  ;  the  second  act  discovers  and  bruits 
abroad  the  degradation  of  the  liberated  people,  the 
public  retires  into  the  shell  of  its  disappointed  virtue, 
turning  over  the  worthless  savages  to  the  wise  men  of 
commerce  to  discipline  and  use  according  to  their 
deserts.  The  farce  is  now  finished.  A  protectorate  is 
established,  or  annexation,  and  the  unworthy  race  is 
taken  in  tutelage  tor  a  nameless  period.  To  nervous 
objections  the  reply  is  that  it  is  improper  to  consider 
the  preferences  of  semi-savages. 

This  pious  buncoing  is  proceeding  for  the  confisca- 
tion of  Porto  Rico,  the  Philippines,  and  possibly  Cuba 
— for  Hawaii  the  work  is  already  done.  The  moral 
and  religious  '  gag '  of  elevating  the  natives  is  being 
worked  in  the  usual  way  to  obtain  the  vote  of  the 
churches.  When  we  have  absorbed  or  established  our 
guardianship  of  tlie  islands,  the  inciting   commercial 


TO   BLESS   THE   CONQUERED.  5 

class  will  lay  religion  and  humanity  aside  and  resume 
its  native  shape  of  proprietor,  speculator  and  capitalist. 
The  critical  question  is  whether  this  will  be  opposed 
by  the  moral  and  religious  uplifters.  If  the  aims  of  the 
moral  and  religious  were  intelligent  and  serious,  were 
the}^  people  of  character  and  force,  the  commercial  ex- 
ploiters would  be  sternl}-  faced  and  held  to  their  prom- 
ises :  but  this  will  not  happen.  Adjustment  will  hap- 
pen. The  rapacious  commercialists  will  pronounce  the 
doctrine  of  total  savage  depravit}',  the  lifters-up  will 
appreciate  that  this  is  reasonable  and  will  gracefully  go 
about  saving  the  souls  of  the  natives  whose  bodies  the 
capitalists  will  break. 

The  principles  proceeded  upon  by  the  capitalists  will 
be  those  always  applied  to  inferior  labor  by  employers 
— long  hours,  pett}^  remuneration,  and  no  consideration 
of  their  well-being.  What  is  left  of  the  natives  after 
this  will  be  turned  over  to  the  missionaries  to  be  pre- 
pared for  death.  And  the  religious  party  will  accept 
these  fag  ends  of  humanity  and  recite  their  formulas  of 
doing  good,  soul-saving  and  lifting  up,  showing  that 
the  destroyers  and  the  saviors  luiderstood  each  other 
from  the  beginning  of  the  annexation  drama.  The 
Hawaiian  planters  have  protested  that  our  government 
must  not  prevent  the  importation  of  alien  labor  there 
because  their  prosperity  depends  upon  an  inflow  of 
cheap  coolies.  What  about  the  well-being,  of  our 
American  citizens,  the  Hawaiian  natives,  who  must 
compete  with  these  coolie  importations?  Will  they 
develop  into  the  kind  of  men  that  we  like  to  imagine 
our  citizens  are?  And  was  not  one  of  the  strong  pub- 
lic motives  for  Hawaiian  annexation — before  the  war 
motive  dispensed  with  subterfuge — our  concern  for  the 
good  of  the  natives  ?  Consider  then  the  prospects  of 
the  Philippine  natives  if  our  commercial  exploiters  ex- 
haust them  so  rapidly  as  to  require  a  new  stream  of 
coolie  Chinese  ! 

Laying  aside  cant,  let  us  admit  that  our  commercial 
classes  are  magnificently  indiflferent  to  the  well-being 
of  any  natives,  and  will  resent  and  thwart  the  first  move 
to  hinder  them  from  consuming  the  natives  as  '  labor  ' 


6  TO   BI.ESS   THE   CONQUERED. 

and  reducing  their  strength  and  life  to  'profits.'  The 
position  of  the  moral  and  religious  would  be  mord- 
antly  humiliating  if  the}^  were  serious  and  honest  about 
saving  the  natives. 

Events  relating  to  the  Philippines  have  already  trans- 
pired to  establish  these  facts.  The  National  Christian 
Citizenship  Convention  that  was  called  to  meet  in 
Washington,  D.  C,  last  December,  issued  the  follow- 
ing remarkable  subjects  for  the  convention's  work: 

"Should  suffrage  be  limited  by  educational  tests  or 
otherwise  in  the  new  island  territories  ? 

Should  civil-service  reform  be  extended  to  the  new 
island  offices? 

Should  the  national  laws  forbidding  prize-fights  and 
bull-fights,  restricting  divorce,  and  forbidding  bigamy 
and  related  evils,  be  extended  to  our  new  island 
territories  ? 

Should  the  American  civil  Sabbath  be  also  extended 
to  these  islands? 

Should  the  canteen  be  abolished  ? 

Should  the  policy  of  prohibition  be  maintained  in 
Alaska  and  the  Indian  Territory  and  extended  to  our 
new  island  territories  ?" 

Could  anything  be  more  delicately  ludicrous  than 
this  program  for  reaching  the  great  industrial  evil, 
which  vvc  shall  legally  foster  and  protect  in  every  island 
that  we  grab!  We  shall  set  up  a  system  for  legally 
robbing  the  natives  of  all  their  valuable  possessions  ; 
capitalists  will  secure  every  fertile  spot  and  hire  the 
work  done  by  native  gangs  at  just  savage  subsistence 
wages ;  they  will  plant  factories  and  use  the  cheap  labor 
to  undersell  white  labor  in  our  own  country  and  other 
parts  of  the  world.  But  this  outlook  does  not  affront 
our  Christian  Citizens,  for  they  are  accustomed  to  see 
white  men  in  their  own  country  dealt  with  on  the  same 
principles,  and  to  recognize  it  as  a  wise  ordination  of 
providence.  What  troubles  them  is  whether  these  sav- 
ages will  keep  the  oabbath,  whether  they  can  be  cut 
off  from  the  few  brutal  pleasures  accessible  to  their 
kind — prize-fights,  bull-fights,  etc., — v^^hether  to  pro- 
hibit them  from  drinking  (it  would  make   them  more 


TO    Bl^KbS   ''rHK    COxVyuiiRED,  f 

serviceable  worknitu  and  ought  tu  be  dcue),  aud 
whether  the  pagaus  cau  be  restrained  by  our  purifying 
law  from  the  sin  of  wives  and  free  divorces.  Excellent 
fun  indeed  I  Heroic  work  to  do  v/hile  the  American 
people  through  their  army  and  navj'  are  assisting  the 
capitalists  to  change  the  natives  into  that  broken-down, 
wrung-out,  off-scouring  of  civilization,  the  wage- 
worker.  But  while  we  are  enforcing  our  sexual 
hypocrisy  upon  them  will  not  our  Christian  Citizens 
prepare  a  convention  against  the  palaces  of  prostitution 
that  will  enter  with  the  white  man's  civilization,  and 
forestall  them  by  forbidding  prostitution  in  the  Phil- 
ippines by  law? 

How  much  weight,  then,  should  the  plea  of  annex- 
ing savages  to  bless  them  have?  Simply  none.  The 
altruists  who  are  praying  for  a  new  chance  to  do  good 
are  deferential  supplicators  of  capitalists  for  funds  to 
paint  over  the  deep  wounds  which  capitalism  will  in- 
flict. In  timorous  hope  of  contributions  they  have  to 
creep  before  these  great  men  with  anxious  circum- 
spection. They  can  champion  no  reform  that  is  odious 
to  the  lords  of  the  purse.  They  ma}'-  amuse  themselves 
debating  questions  of  the  canteen,  prohibition,  bull- 
fights, divorce,  educational  and  property  tests  of  citi- 
zenship that  would  disfranchise  the  natives  and  give 
the  capitalists  legislative  control,  aud  even  civil  service 
reform  to  which  only  the  professional  politician  could 
demur,  but  they  will  religiously  let  the  great  abuses 
alone:  they  will  never  utter  a  sound  against  the  capit- 
alist methods  of  employment,  the  irresistible  processes 
of  capitalism  that  sponge  up  wealth  into  a  central  hoard 
and  debauch  the  population  to  a  servile  dependence 
equal  to  slavery.  The  religious  gentlemen  who  should 
speak  of  these  outrages  would  lose  their  nice  comfort. 
For  comfort's  sake  they  hold  their  peace.  But  the 
division  of  spoils  is  suitable.  The  capitalists  take  the 
loaf  and  give  the  religionists  the  crumbs.  There  is  a 
much  meaning  lesson  here  :  even  the  forces  of  tyrannical 
selfishness  are  leagued  against  religious  sycophants. 
Canting  religion  has  grown  too  weak  to  longer  exact 
payment. 


8  TO   BLESS   THE   CONOUERED. 

But  let  others  realize  the  fraud.  Let  theui  beware 
of  making  themselves  the  equally  degraded  instruments 
of  capitalist  usage  and  contempt.  Let  them  close  their 
ears  to  the  cry  for  expansion  which  these  pious  persons 
are  so  starvingly  paid  to  raise. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Imperialism  for  the  Sake  of  Mafikisid 


1.     Anglo-Saxon  Claims. 

The  plea  of  duty  to  the  v;orld  involves  a  wider  out- 
look. We  are  solicited  to  extend  our  proprietorship 
and  rule  in  order  to  disseminate  our  free  institutions 
over  the  earth.  Wherever  our  liberal  institutions  go 
they  are  presumed  to  convey  enlightenment  and  ele- 
vation. We  are  told  that  it  is  a  critical  moment  for 
mankind,  that  England  has  for  some  generations  been 
bucking  against  the  entire  world  alone,  that  her  strength 
is  failing,  and  that  destiny  calls  us  to  the  rescue.  She 
has  nobly  carried  the  Anglo-Saxon  habits  of  freedom 
to  darkened  peoples,  and  now,  her  generous  task  in- 
complete, she  falters  under  the  strain,  her  envious 
rivals  block  the  path  and  nibble  ferociously  at  the  fair 
slices  of  the  world  she  has  already  benignly  carved  out. 
The  great  prize  at  stake  for  mankind  is  Anglo-Saxon 
lordship  of  the  globe.  Anglo-Saxonism  is  set  forth 
to  be  a  higher  form  of  civilization  than  any  other  race 
can  bring  to  the  conquered  continents,  and  it  is  plaint- 
ively alleged  that  England's  struggle  is  ours  and  that 
the  spread  of  Anglo-Saxonism,  its  lofty  realities  and 
loftier  ideals,  is  the  sacred  affair  of  every  English 
speaking  man.  They  reproach  us  with  standing  idly 
apart  from  the  great  world's  affairs  too  long,  shirking 
our  magnanimous  responsibilities  in  the  stupendous 
drama  of  international  evolution,  and  Senator  Lodge 
sadly  discerns  the  "humiliation  of  the  United  States 
in  the  eyes  of  civilized  mankind  "  if  we  do  not  pluck 


lO  PROTESTS   AGAINST   IMPERIALISM. 

the  ripe  fruit  of  imperialisru,  and  tlie  stain  upon  us  of 
being  "incapable  of  great  affairs  or  of  taking  rank 
where  we  belong  as  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  great 
world  powers."  With  all  this  pathos  the  trade-be- 
dizened prize  cf  China  is  mixed  up.  Let  her  not  be- 
come Russianized,  the}'  implore,  to  annihilate  Anglo- 
Saxon  prestige.  These  are  evidently  high  matters 
needing  subtle  stud}-. 

2.     Eiig.lJ'ih  Protests  Agaiiist  Impsrialism. 

In  moments  and  destinies  so  critical  nothing  must  be 
taken  for  granted.  What  is  this  princely  gift  that 
England  is  seeking  to  bestow  upon  humanity?  Why 
is  it  so  necessary  for  Anglo-Saxons  to  rule  mankind? 
Much  depends  on  the  answer  to  this.  The  answer 
given  by  English  statesmen  is  certainly  dim,  doubting 
and  obscure.  In  fact  we  shall  be  greatlj^  surprised  by 
the  persistance  with  v/hich  the  good  and  self  interest 
of  the  Anglo-Saxons  enters  into  the  disinterested  creed 
of  universal  good  to  mankind.  But  in  England  there 
is  far  from  that  contented  and  assui'ed  agreement  that 
we  should  expect  in  an  unselfish  nation  devoted  to  the 
great  policy  of  ameliorating  mankind.  The  Liberal 
party  is  on  the  verge  of  wreck  over  this  beautiful  ideal 
of  an  Anglo-vSaxon  Vv'orld. 

On  the  15th  of  December  a  great  conference  of  Lib- 
erals was  held  at  Birmingham  to  face  the  crisis  occa- 
sioned by  Harcourt's  resignation.  In  the  evening  Mr. 
A.squith  made  what  the  Liberal  press  called  a  "great 
speech  "  in  the  course  of  which  he  said  : 

"Gentlemen,  we  are  not  Jingoes,  we  repudiate  that 
pinchbeck  imperialism  which  regards  tlie  whole  world 
as  its  legitimate  provinces,  and  which  fl  uints  its  flag 
and  challenge  in  the  face  of  every  pov.'er  in  turn. 
We  base  the  title  of  Great  Britain  in  India,  in  Egypt, 
and  wherever  we  are  exercising  our  supremacy,  over 
the  populations  of  any  country  or  race,  not  upon  brute 
force,  not  upon  the  authorit}'^  of  disciplined  strength 
over  the  scattered  resources  of  the  untrained  intelli- 
gence of  the  undeveloped  races.     (Hear,  hear.)     We 


PROTESTS   AGAINST   IMPERIALISM.  1 1 

base  it  upou  the  work  which  we  do,  upon  the  benefits 
which  we  coufer,  and,  above  all,  upou  that  which  is, 
or  ought  to  be,  the  predominant  purpose  of  our  policy, 
upon  the  slow,  but  in  course  of  time  the  effective  asso- 
ciation with  those  to  v/nom  v.'e  came  in  the  character  of 
strangers  and  conquerers — the  task  of  helping  them 
work  out  for  themselves  a  higher  and  a  better  political 
and  social  ideal.     (Hear,  hear.)" 

If  Mr.  Asquith  does  not  know  there  are  many 
in  England  udio  do  know  that  there  is  a  wide  distance 
betv,'een  "that  v»'hich  is,"  and  ''  t]i9.t\'A\\c\i  07ioht  to  be, 
the  predominant  purpose"  of  English  policy.  But  on 
the  Vv'hole  this  sounds  noble  and  good  and  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  imperialism  which  is  at  present  in  the 
saddle  in  England.  Moderate  as  it  is,  what  v.-as  the 
general  sentiment  of  the  conference  as  compared  with 
it?  That  sentiment  will  possibly  stagger  the  benevo- 
lent people  whose  clarion  voice  is  now  calling  us  to 
England's  rescue. 

At  the  afternoon  session  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jowett — note 
the  ' '  Reverend ' '  and  ' '  a  man  of  great  note  in  Birming- 
ham"— 'attacked  "Imperialism"  in  all  moods  and 
tenses,  in  a  strong  speech.' 

'  He  said  an  infection  v/as  in  the  air  v^^hich  seemed 
to  have  tainted  the  historic  party  which  had  hitherto 
been  the  party  of  peace.  It  v»'as  a  tendency  which  v/as 
one  of  the  most  perilous  of  modern  days.  That  word 
imperialism  had  become  so  tainted  with  suspicion  that 
he  was  not  sure  that  any  self-respecting  statesman 
would  aspire  to  be  thought  in  favor  of  it.  (Cheers.) 
Imperialism  v/as  only  a  synonym  for  jingoism — -(cheers) 
— against  which  they  fought  and  conquered  twenty 
5'ears  ago.  (Cheers.)  He  announced  the  daringly 
logical  conclusion  that  England  was  at  present  playing 
the  part  of  Stiggins  in  Europe,  "seizing  slices  of  the 
globe  "  and  glozing  it  over  with  "  religious  postur- 
ings."  '  * 

Sir  Wilfrid  Eawson  said,  the  only  people  who  liked 
war    were    statesmen,   music-hall    singers,   aldermen. 


♦London  Daily  Chronicle  report,  Dec.  17,  1S9S. 


12  PROTESTS   AGAINST   IMPERIALISM. 

bishops,  and  newspaper  editors.  (Laughter  and 
cheers.) 

Mr.  Hirst  Hollowell  declared  that  '  it  was  not  a  battle 
of  persons  or  private  jealousies  that  was  going  on  inside 
the  Liberal  party,  but  of  principles.  The  party  was 
not  going  to  be  led  into  jingoism  by  anybody,  and  if 
its  leaders  or  those  of  any  other  party  were  to  be  dis- 
paraged or  shunted  because  they  stood  up  against 
jingoism,  then  the  members  of  the  party  throughout 
the  country  would  have  something  to  say  on  the  mat- 
ter. (Loud  cheers.)  .  .  .  There  were  two  things  with 
which  the  Liberal  party  would  never  make  any  terms, 
and  these  were  sectarianism  in  education  and  jingoism 
in  foreign  politics.      (Cheers.)' 

"  The  net  result  of  the  tvhole  was  summed  7cp  by  the 
observers  as  a  demonstration  of  unexpected  strength 
against  the  Liberal  Imperialists.'''  * 

It  seems  then  that  many  Englishmen  have  not  the 
slightest  toleration  for  the  talisman  by  which  we  are 
being  conjured  to  expansion — that  Anglo-Saxon  Im- 
perialism is  a  blessing  to  the  world. 

But  no  British  statesman  can  speak  on  this  subject 
with  the  weight  of  Jolm  Morley  because  of  his  known 
probity,  and  Mr.  Morley  has  broken  v>^ith  the  new 
Liberalism  because  of  its  "  imperialistic  jingo  policy" 
which  he  thus  defines  : 

"  First,  that  territory  is  territory,  and  all  territory  is 
worth  acquiring. 

"Second,  that  all  territory,  especially  if  anybody 
happens  to  want  it,  is  worth  paying  any  price  for. 

"Third,  that  the  country  possesses  the  purse  of 
Fortunatus,  and  is  free  to  fling  millions  here  and  mil- 
lions there,  with  the  certainty  that  benignant  fairies 
will,  by  magic,  make  them  good. 

"  Fourth,  do  not  show  the  slightest  regard  for  the 
opinions  of  other  nations.  You  have  no  share  what- 
ever in  the  great  collective  responsibility  of  civilized 
peoples  as  the  winged  guardians  of  peace  and  good  or- 
der in  the  state  system  of  Europe. 


♦London  Daily  Chronicle  report,  Dec.  17,  i8 


BRITISH    I?iIPERIAI.    BATHOS.  I3 

"  Fifth,  the  interests  of  the  people  of  this  country, 
and  advancement  in  all  the  arts  of  civilized  life  and 
well-being,  are  completely  and  utterlj'  secondary  and 
subordinate  questions. ' '  ^ 

Mr.  lyabouchere  had  alreadj-  spoken  in  notable  lan- 
guage on  some  of  these  points  before  the  Manchester 
Reform  Club.  He  had  said  :  ' '  The  great  illusion  of  the 
present  day  was  to  suppose  that  an  increase  of  territory 
meant  an  increase  of  trade.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  as 
could  easily  be  proved  by  figures,  it  did  not  mean  any 
such  thing.  All  the  annexations  we  had  made  of  late 
were  a  commercial  fallacj',  and  even  the  doctrine  of  the 
open  door  had  been  much  exaggerated.  The  mania  at 
the  present  time  was  to  spend  money  in  any  place  ex- 
cepting England.  Instead  of  spending  mone}'-  in  irri- 
gation works  in  Bahr-el-Ghazal  he,  as  a  Londoner, 
maintained  that  they  ought  to  spend  it  rather  in  pro- 
viding a  good  water  supply  for  the  inhabitants  of  the 
metropolis.  When  he  saw  the  proposal  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  school  at  Khartoum  to  teach  little  Arab 
boys  English  he  could  not  help  thinking  what  a  won- 
derful people  his  countrymen  were  to  spend  money  on 
such  an  object  as  that  instead  of  supplying  food  and 
clothing  and  education  to  the  thousands  of  poor  little 
English  boys  at  home. ' '  f 

3.     British  Imperial  Bathos. 

These  unequivocal  protests  give  the  noble  mission  of 
England  a  very  different  hue.  Bathos  dances  behind 
all  the  magnificentl}^  generous  phrases.  We  find  it  in 
Eord  Rosebery's  eulogy  of  the  awful  Sirdar  of  the  Sou- 
dan. "  Our  task,"  said  the  Lord,  "  is  the  task  of  our 
empire  all  over  the  world,  not  merely  to  erect  a  stand- 
ard of  civil  government  for  those  who  have  not  hitherto 
had  that  standard,  but  to  enable  the  people  gradually,  at 
a  long  distance  perhaps,  but  m  time  at  any  rate,  to  take 
some  part  va.  their  own  administration,  and  to  have  a 


*Speech  at  Montrose,  Jan.   1899.     See  London  correspondence  of  New 
York  Post,  Jan,  25. 
fLondon  Chronicle,  Dec.  14,  1898. 


14  BRITISH    I.MPEUIAT.    BATHOS. 

disiindive  share  iu  the  mouldiug  of  their  ovvu  future." 
(Cheers.)  "Gradualh-,"  "  at  a  long  distance,"  "some 
part,"  "  a  distinctive  share,"  these  are  not  aims  that 
make  it  worth  while  for  the  freedom  loving  American 
people  to  sustain  England's  conquering  arm. 

The  difficult)'  these  Imperialist  politicians  have  iu 
making  selfishness  seem  noble  makes  one  pinch  one- 
self to  be  sure  that  they  are  not  on  a  stage  acting  for 
the  amusement  of  mankind.  Mr.  G.  \V.  Balfour,  M. 
P.,  Chief  Secretar}'  for  Ireland,  a  representative  Con- 
servative, wrestling  to  hide  the  secrets,  gave  them  away 
bravel3^  "  Was  the  Imperial  spirit  a  spirit  to  be  en- 
couraged, or  a  spirit  to  be  repressed  ?  In  a  general 
wa^^  within  reasonable  limits  and  within  the  limits  of 
our  strength,  he  thought  the  policy  of  what  I^ord  Rose- 
bery  described  as  pegging  out  claims  to  posteritx'  was 
a  wise  and  sound  one.  Had  we  moral  justification  for 
pursuing  this  policy  ?  If  these  dependencies  zvere  not  7cn- 
der  the  coyitrol  of  this  country,  they  wojild,  for  the  most 
part,  undoubtedly  fall  nnder  the  conti'ol  of  some  other 
cozc7itry,  and  we  had  at  least  this  to  sa}^  at  the  bar  of 
the  world's  judgment,  that  wherever  v/e  occupied  a 
territory  that  territory  was  opened  to  the  enterprise  and 
the  trade  of  all  the  world.  (Cheers.)  No  doubt  rve 
sought  our  own  advaiiiagc,  but  the  peculiarity  was  that 
our  advantage  did  not  exclude  the  advantage  of  other 
people.  The  second  justification  which  we  could  plead 
for  this  policy  was  that  it  was  in  our  power  to  show 
that  the  countries  over  which  our  rule  had  extended 
had  gained  by  means  of  that  rule  the  blessings  of  order, 
of  good  government,  a7id  of  a  higher  civilization  than  that 
which  they  previously  knezv. ' '     (Cheers.  )* 

If  we  don't  steal  every  country  that  is  not  already 
stolen  some  other  Power  will  steal  it — our  stealing  is 
therefore  righteous.  Disraeli  established  this  for  us  by 
stealing  Cyprus.  We  seek  our  own  advantage,  but  we 
find  it  to  our  greater  advantage  to  share  our  trade  ad- 
vantages with  others — therefore  we  are  unselfish.  And 
surely  you  can't  say   that  we  don't  bless  and  civilize 


♦Speech  at  Keighley,  Dec.  20,  1898. 


BRITISH    IMPERIAL   BATHOS.  1 5 

and  keep  a  splendid  police  system  over  the  conquered 
and  govern  them  in  a  more  orderly  manner  than  they 
governed  themselves — therefore  if  we  take  their  coun- 
try away  from  them  and  rob  them  of  independence  it  is 
justified.  Yes,  but  this  is  unmitigated  bathos  and  rot, 
and  Englishmen  who  are  not  muzzled  know  it  and  say 
so.  The  Saturday  Review  says  this  flatly  in  referring 
to  a  paper  by  Dr.  Bonar  on  the  Empire,  read  before  the 
British  xlssociation  : 

"  Dr.  Bonar,  at  any  rate,  has  a  quaint  notion  of  the 
altruistic  mission  of  the  Empire.  Wealth  does  not 
always  give  power,  as  he  truly  says.  But  he  asks  us 
to  believe  that  we  hold  Egypt,  and  even  India,  '  not 
from  avarice,  but  from  love  of  governing.'  '  Our  own 
colonies,'  he  adds,  'are  not  bound  to  us  by  a  nexus  of 
cash  payments.'  Does  Dr.  Bonar  really  imagine  that 
we  hold  India  and  Egypt  primarily  because  we  think 
that  we  can  govern  them  better  than  any  one  else  can  ? 
The  plain  unvarnished  truth  is  that  the  Empire  was 
built  up  as  the  result  of  the  pursuit  of  gain,  and  if  we  do 
not  attempt  to  exact  immediate  cash  payments  or  their 
equivalent  from  the  Colonies  today,  we  abstain  because 
rude  experience  warns  us  of  the  certain  consequences."* 

The  canting  utterances  of  Lord  Salisbury  confirm  this. 
Said  he:t  '  'The  Empire  is  advancing  and  must  advance. 
(Hear,  hear. )  The  great  strength  you  have  must  be 
used  unfailingly,  unsparingly,  but  still  prudently,  for 
the  advancement  of  the  interest  of  the  Empire,  and  for 
the  benefit  of  mankind.  (Cheers.)  And  happy  will 
be  the  Minister  in  future  days  who  will  be  able  to  ren- 
der you  as  good  an  account  as  I  think  we  can  render 
you  today — (loud  and  prolonged  cheers) — that  we  have 
used  the  force  that  is  entrusted  to  us  not  violently,  not 
sentimentally,  but  with  calm  and  courageous  calcula- 
tion for  the  advancement  of  the  interests  of  the  Empire 
and  the  benefits  of  the  civilization  of  mankind.  (Eoud 
cheers.)  " 

The  words  of  Mr.  Chamberlain  confirm  this. 
Taunted  by  Mr.  Asquith  with  '  inconsistency  in  having 

*Sept.  17,  1898. 

tvSpeaking  at  a  dinner  of  the  Constitutional  Club,  London,  Dec.  16, 1S98. 


l6  BRITISH    IJIPERIAL    BATHOS. 

at  one  moment  boasted  of  Britain's  glorious  isolation 
and  at  another  advocated  an  alliance,  he  replied  that 
England  is  "  glorioush'  isolated  "  in  her  abilit}'  to  de- 
fend her  own  exclusive  interests  ;  but  she  needs  an  allj^ 
when  she  is  called  upon  to  assist  in  the  promoiioJi  of  the 
t7iterests  of  others.'  -^ 

The  speech  of  the  new  L,ord  Curzon  at  the  luncheon 
given  in  his  honor  b}^  the  directors  of  the  Peninsular 
and  Oriental  Steamship  Company  on  the  eve  of  his  de- 
parture to  rule  India  confirms  it.f  The  occasion  w^as 
significant,  he  was  speaking  to  great  commercial  men- 

'  Among  the  chief  advantages  of  the  imperial  con. 
nection  between  England  and  India  he  included  the 
possibilit}^  of  the  improved  development  of  India. 
[The  usual  flourish  of  duty  and  disinterestedness.]  .  .  . 
The  chairman  had  incidentally  referred  to  India  in  the 
interests  of  business  men  as  a  field  for  commercial  en- 
terprise. [Transition  to  the  motive  of  avarice  begins.] 
He  could  not  help  thinking,  although  desirous  to  avoid 
prophecy,  that  there  would  be  great  developments  in 
that  respect.  (Hear,  hear.)  [Warm  commercial 
response.]  .  .  .  If  we  could  establish  in  India  anything 
like  stability  of  exchange — a  great  problem  to  which 
any  outgoing  Viceroy  must  turn  his  attention — he  be- 
lieved that  confidence  would  revive,  and  that  British 
capital  would  flow  more  freely  to  India.  It  might  per- 
haps be  regarded  as  a  counsel  of  perfection  to  look  at 
the  case  from  any  other  point  of  view  than  that  of  ex- 
pediency and  self-interest,  but  in  all  matters  connected 
with  India  he  believed  the  point  of  view  of  duty  and  of 
obligation  was  paramount.  (Hear,  hear.)  [Another 
blast  on  the  trumpet  of  pharisaism  with  fine  commer- 
cial appreciation.]  .  .  .  But  here,  as  business  men, ///<?y 
might  pardon  a7id  sympathize  with  him  if  he  looked  at 
the  matter  also  from  the  sordid  point  of  view  of  the  £  s.  d. 
[Now  preliminaries  are  over  and  Curzon  gets  down  to 
business.]  Let  them  look  at  the  trade  of  India,  and 
compare  it  with  the  trade  of  our  colonies.  He  found 
that  the  total  sea-borne  trade  of  India  for  1896  7,  which 

♦Saturday  Review,  Dec.  lo,  1898. 

fSee  the  London  Chronicle,  Dec.  3,  1898. 


BRITISH    IMPERIAL    BATHOS.  17 

was  an  unprosperous  year,  almost  equalled  that  of  the 
whole  of  our  Australian  colonies,  and  was  much  greater 
than  that  of  our  South  African  and  North  American 
colonies  combined  ;  indeed,  it  constituted  nearly  one- 
tenth  of  the  trade  of  the  whole  British  Empire,  and  was 
more  than  one-third  of  the  trade  of  the  whole  Empire 
outside  of  the  United  Kingdom.  (Hear,  hear.)  These 
were  astounding  figures,  and  if  any  deduction  was  to 
be  drawn  from  them,  it  was  certainly  not  the  conclus- 
ion that,  even  regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of  self- 
interest,  India  was  a  matter  in  which  we  had  little  or 
no  concern.  On  the  contrary,  India  was  of  vital  inter- 
est. (Cheers.)'  [The  commercial  skeleton  of  En- 
gland's civilizing  philanthropy  is  at  length  completely 
bared.] 

The  determination  of  England  to  monopolize  educa- 
tion in  Africa  confirms  it.  Conveying  to  Kitchener 
the  approval  of  "  Her  Majesty's  Government"  of  the 
Khartoum  College  project  Lord  Salisbury  said  :  ' '  The 
reconciliation  of  the  races  which  inhabit  the  Nile  Val- 
ley to  a  government  which,  in  its  principles  and  its 
methods,  must  be  essentially  Western,  is  a  task  of  the 
extreraest  difficulty.  It  will  tax  the  resources  of  the 
present  generation,  and  of  those  who  come  after  them, 
for  many  years  before  the  wall  of  prejudice  can  be 
thrown  down  which  separates  the  thoughts  of  the 
European  and  the  thoughts  of  the  Egyptian  and  the 
Soudanese  races,  and  until  it  is  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent accomplished  we  cannot  count  securely  upon  their 
co-operation,  either  in  the  duties  of  government  or  in 
the  promotion  of  industrial  progress.  The  only  method 
by  which  this  reconciliation  can  be  attained  is  to  give 
to  the  races  whom  you  have  conquered  access  to  the 
literature  and  knowledge  of  Europe. 

"Your  scheme,  therefore,  for  establishing  a  machin- 
ery by  which  European  knowledge  can  be  brought  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  is  not  only  in 
itself  most  admirable,  but  it  represents  the  only  policy 
by  which  the  civilizing  mission  of  this  country  can 
effectively  be  accomplished." 


1 8  BRITISH    LMPKRIAI,   BATHOS. 

The  general  attitude  of  the  nation  is  mirrored  in  the 
following  editorial  opinion  : 

"  For  this  College  at  Khartoum  would  be  a  new  de- 
parture in  Africa.  There  we  have  lavished  millions  in 
attempts  to  teach  Christianity,  with  and  without  ma- 
terial improvements  in  the  condition  of  the  people.  In 
spite  of  widely  circulated  annual  reports,  the  political 
observer  can  see  no  great  results — none  at  any  rate 
commensurate  with  the  outlay.  And  here  would  be  a 
new  line,  the  only  line  possible,  as  the  Prime  Minister, 
whose  Christianity  no  one  will  suspect,  has  very  prop- 
erly said,  by  which  the  civilizing  mission  of  Great  Brit- 
ain can  be  thoroughly  accomplished  in  the  Nile  basin." 

All  this  seems  verj'  innocent  and  disinterested.  But 
about  this  time  France  began  to  talk  of  assisting  in  the 
arduous  task  of  '  reconciling  '  African  with  European 
civilization  by  founding  two  colleges  in  the  Nile  Val- 
ley, one  at  Khartoum  and  one  at  Fashoda.  M.  Deloncle 
in  a  letter  to  the  "  Temps  "  said  :  "  Will  you  be  so 
kind  as  to  inform  your  readers  that,  anxious  not  to  be 
left  behind  in  this  work  of  education,  a  French  group 
has  in  its  turn  taken  the  initiative  for  the  foundation  of 
two  establishments  for  native  education  and  instruc- 
tion— in  the  first  place,  '  The  French  School  '  at  Khar- 
toum, and,  later  on,  '  The  Marchaud  School '  at  Fash- 
oda. The  greater  part  of  the  funds  required  for  this 
double  project  is  already  assured  by  generous 
donations." 

We  may  presume  that  England  thankfully  welcomed 
this  offer  to  share  the  burden  of  civilizing  the  Soudan- 
ese races,  a  task  in  Salisburj'-'s  words  of  "  extremest 
difficulty,"  but  she  did  nothing  of  the  sort.  English 
papers  scorned  the  offer  and  called  it  an  "  amusing 
project."  Why  amusing;'  If  England's  purpose  is 
the  good  of  the  Nile  people  why  will  she  not  co-oper- 
ate gladly  with  a  highly  civilized  nation  like  France  to 
educate  them  ?  Educators  and  scientists  of  all  nations 
of  the  earth  are  loyall)^  co-operating  to  advance  science 
and  education  irrespective  of  race  and  political  rivalry. 
But  we  can  understand  very  well  why  England  will 
not  co-operate  or  share  if  her  '  civilization  '  is  domin- 


BRITISH    IMPERIAL    BATHOS.  1 9 

atiou  and  supremacy  in  the  Nile  region  for  commercial 
ends,  aud  the  fact  that  she  will  not  brook  assistance  in 
educating  and  civilizing  establishes  our  contention  that 
her  ruling  purpose  is  not  civilization  at  all  but  com- 
mercialism, that  she  would  not  be  held  in  Africa  or 
India  a  day  b}'  the  good  she  can  do  there,  and  that 
what  holds  her  is  the  gain  she  gets  or  expects   to  get. 

The  New  York  Tribune,  referring  to  Lord  Cromer's 
announcement  to  the  Soudanese  of  the  civilization  that 
is  ahead  of  them,  expressed  a  great  thought  very 
suavel)'.  "  Of  course,"  it  remarked,  "  it  may  be  ob- 
jected that  this  action  of  the  British  is  criminal  aggres- 
sion, rank  imperialism,  et  cetera,  and  that  it  is  a 
shameful  thing  to  set  up  a  government  at  Omdurman 
without  a  favorable  plebiscitum  in  Dem  Bekir.  But 
we  doubt  whether  such  considerations  will  undo  or  de- 
feat the  convention  which  has  been  made,  or  will  turn 
back  the  rising  tide  of  civilization  in  the  Dark  Con- 
tinent." The  rising  of  Kuropean  commercial  rule  and 
the  falling  tide  of  African  independence,  would  be  true. 
Call  "criminal  aggression  "  by  the  name  of  "  civiliza- 
tion "  and  its  sins  are  all  forgiven;  it  is  redeemed, 
purified  and  read}^  to  enter  heaven. 

The  curious  reader  will  find  in  the  British  and  Foreign 
State  Papers  for  the  year  1854-5,  *  the  following 
words  :  'In  1854  a  grand  jury  in  the  Williamsburg 
district  [South  Carolina]  declared,'  "  as  our  unanimous 
opinion,  that  the  Federal  law  abolishing  the  African 
Slave  Trade  is  a  public  grievance.  We  hold  this  trade 
has  been  and  would  be,  if  re-established,  a  blessing  to 
the  American  people,  a-nd  a  benefit  to  the  African  him- 
sdf." 

The  idea  that  slavery  was  a  benefit  to  the  African 
himself  was  made  a  corner  stone  of  the  institution  of 
slavery.  It  brought  inward  consolation  to  the  good 
man  who  held  slaves  or  upheld  slavery.  Now,  the 
enslaving  of  lower  nations  is  good  for  the  nation  that 
enslaves  and  a  benefit  to  the  nation  that  is  enslaved. 


♦Page  1156,  quoted  by  W.  E.  B.  Du  Bois  :    "  The  Suppression  of  the  Afri- 
can Slave  Trade  in  the  United  States,"  p.  169. 


20  ONT.Y    CASH-PAYING    PHILANTHROPY. 

The  good  of  our  time  find  peace  and  perfection  in  this 
doctrine. 

4.     Only  Cash-Paying    Philatithropy    Wanted. 

But  there  are  two  final  forms  of  proof  with  which  we 
chnch  the  foregoing  argument.  First,  England  shows 
no  inclination  to  go  adventuring  in  those  countries 
where  there  is  magnificent  opportunity  for  unselfish 
philanthropy  and  little  or  none  for  profit.  Secondly, 
English  dealing  with  the  subjugated  races  shows  that 
commerce  and  profit  are  primary,  and  that  civilization 
and  upbuilding  are  desired  and  fostered  just  in  so  far 
as  they  promote  commerce  and  profit.  Let  us  give 
examples.  Leonard  Courtney  in  his  recent  presiden- 
tial address  before  the  Royal  Statistical  Society  on 
"  An  Experiment  in  Commercial  Expansion,"  gave  a 
study  of  the  Congo  Free  State.  Europe  placed  the 
Congo  State  in  the  hands  of  the  King  of  Belgium  for 
"  commercial  and  philanthropic  exploitation."  The 
net  commercial  result  was  that  "  the  Congo  trade  rep- 
resented but  little  more  than  0.7  per  cent,  of  the  total 
trade  of  Belgium."  This,  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "was 
sadly  disproportionate  to  the  anticipations  of  the 
enterprise." 

He  said  that  ''ifwe  wished  to  think  accurately  about 
such  enterprises  as  the  Congo  experiment, />/z//<x?///ir<?/Vj/ 
and  commerce  must  he  separated  J)  om  one  atiother  i?i  our 
thoughts.  As  a  philanthropic  adventure  the  Congo 
had  certainly  been  a  very  mixed  success.  An  ex- 
tremely chequered  record  of  war,  enforced  labor,  and  ex- 
acted tribute  tyiight,  after  long  years,  effect  a  certain 
transformation  of  the  social  condition  of  the  inhabitants.  .  . 
As  for  the  commercial  success  of  the  Congo,  .  .  .  enough 
had  Ijeen  said  to  show  that  it  was  disputable  whether 
the  resources  of  the  country  were  such  as  to  sustain  a 
permanent  trade,  even  with  the  help  of  the  railway.  .  .  . 
The  immense  developmejit  of  wealth  and  coynmerce,  and 
of  civilized  populations  following  the  establishmeyit  of 
so7ne  of  the  colonies  of  Eiirope,  had  encouraged  the  belief 
that  all  adventures  to  which  the  same  name  could  be 


ONLY    CASH-PAYING    PHILANTHROPY.  21 

giYen  must  be  crowned  with  the  same  success.  Yet 
the  couditious  which  had  secured  this  success  in  the 
past  could  be  easilj^  indicated,  ayid  it  became  a  shnple 
inquiry  whether  like  conditions  were  to  be  found  in  any 
land  offered  for  neiv  enterprise.  .  .  We  were  justified  iu 
saying"  that  nothing  could  be  deduced  from  the  history 
of  American  colonization  or  Indian  domination  to  jus- 
tify' hopes  of  a  lucrative  commercial  cxpansio7i  in  Central 
Africa.  Missionary  and  philanthropic  labor  might  be 
spent  there  with  approval,  and  with  some  measure  of 
slow  success,  but  the  foundatiou  of  healthful  colonies 
furnishing  outlets  for  population  and  commerce  was 
not  hopeful. 

"  Sir  R.  Giffen  moved  a  vote  of  thanks  to  Mr.  Court- 
ney for  his  valuable  paper,  which  was  seconded  b}'-  Sir 
F.  S.  Powell,?^'/?^  thought  this  country  otight  to  be  congrat- 
ulated that  the  Congo  State  did  not  belong  to  tis.  (Cheers.)" 

Here  was  an  instance  where  a  gathering  of  very  in- 
fluential and  representative  Englishmen  put  itself  on 
record  as  being  highly  gratified  that  England  did  not 
own  the  Congo,  because  there  was  no  money  in  it,  al- 
though the  opportunities  for  civilization  and  philan- 
thropy there  were  recognized  as  immense.  If  civilizing 
were  the  actual  as  it  is  the  feigned  object  of  England 
this  is  the  very  kind  of  country  that  she  would  choose 
to  own  and  to  colonize,  on  account  of  its  unbounded 
needs.  The  law  of  imperialistic  colonizing  is  this  : 
No  outlay  shall  be  made  for  'civilizing'  purposes 
which  does  not  promise  to  return,  sooner  or  later,  the 
usual  rate  ol  returns  on  invested  capital.  The  corol- 
lary of  this  law  is  that  civilization  is  not  an  end  in 
itself  but  a  means  to  an  end — a  means  for  increasing 
and  firmly  establishing  commerce.  This  simple  prin- 
ciple is  a  key  to  the  entire  mighty  network  of  imperial- 
ist dogmas  concerning  duty,  religion,  humanit)^  un- 
selfishness and  civilization.  I^ord  Rosebery  skilfully  ad- 
mitted and  used  this  principle  in  his  eulogy  of  the 
Sirdar's  college,  when  he  said  that  'if  our  civilization 
was  to  prevail  against  other  contending  European  civili- 
zatio7ts,  etc.,  ...  he  [Kitchener]  saw  that  a  beginning 
must  be  made  in  the  way  of  a  center  of  education.' 


22  IS    INDIA    HAPPY? 

5.     is  iiiaia  Happy  ? 

The  dealings  of  England  with  her  lower  subject 
races  are  a  sturdy  proof  that  civilizing  and  uplifting 
are  not  her  ends  excepting  as  they  increase  and 
strengthen  her  sources  of  income.  Of  the  recent  ter- 
rific slaughter  of  the  Soudanese  by  machine  guns,  I 
shall  not  speak  here,  but  shall  take  the  illustration 
that  is  most  favorable  to  England — the  Indian  Empire. 
One  word  first,  however,  as  to  what  civilization  and 
race  upbuilding  is.  It  is  the  boast  of  English  Imperial- 
ists that  England  '  brings  into  the  minds  and  into  the 
lives  of  the  subject  people,  not  as  phantoms  of  the  im- 
agination, but  as  solid,  vivid  realities,  the  ideas  of 
order,  justice,  and  humanit}'.'  (Mr.  Asquith.)  But 
these  ideas  alone  are  ver}^  far  from  civilizing.  The  dog 
in  distinction  to  the  wolf  has  these  ideas,  learned  from 
contact  with  civilized  man.  He  is  tender,  kind,  or- 
derly, and  true,  he  is  ev^en  just,  but  he  lacks  that 
which  the  concept  of  civilization  demands.  He  lacks 
independent  development,  self-development,  the  pov.'er 
of  standing  alone  and  going  forward  without  leaning 
or  being  led.  Order,  justice,  and  humanity  are  de- 
veloped in  chattel  slaves,  but  they  lack  a  prime  requis- 
ite of  civilization,  without  which  civilization  is  not. 
They  are  not  free.  Now  the  glib  lords  and  lawyers, 
bishops  and  parliamentarians  and  prophets  of  England 
are  fiery  in  praise  of  the  order  and  security  that 
England  establishes,  but  the}'  do  not  explain  to  us  just 
what  these  are  worth  without  freedom,  self-government, 
and  self-development,  a  thing  that  we  should  very  much 
like  to  know. 

To  what  extent  is  England  developing  the  Indians, 
strengthening  their  character,  training  them  to  be  self- 
sustained,  independent,  and  free?  As  to  this  none  can 
speak  better  than  Indians  themselves.  The  Eondon 
Indian  Societj^  held  its  annual  conference  for  1898  not 
long  ago*  and  the  members  gave  very  vigorous  ex- 
pression to  their  opinion  of  British  treatment  of  India. 
The  chairman,  Mr.  D.  Naoroji,  moved  a  resolution : 


*Dec.  28,  1898.    Reported  in  the  London  Daily  Chronicle. 


IS    INDIA    HAPPY?  23 

"That  in  accordance  with  the  oft-declared  and 
pledged  policy  of  the  British  people,  through  Acts  and 
Resolutions  of  Parliament  and  Proclamations  of  Her 
Majesty  the  Queen,  to  treat  Indians  exactly  as  the  Brit- 
ish subjects  in  this  country  ;  .  .  .  this  conference  is  of 
opinion  and  urges  upon  the  government  in  the  name  of 
British  justice  and  honor,  that  Indians  should  be  al- 
lowed commissions  and  command  in  tlie  Indian  army 
in  the  same  manner  and  through  the  same  methods  as 
are  open  to  Englishmen.  ..." 

'  Mr.  Naoroji  referred  to  the  bravery  and  heroism 
shown  by  the  native  soldiers.  .  .  They  ought  by  rights 
to  be  treated  as  British  citizens,  but  the  practice  of  the 
authorities  was  the  very  reverse.  The  chairman 
quoted  opinions  v/hich  shov%'ed  that  the  native  soldiers 
had  remained  true  to  their  salt,  even  to  the  extent  of 
fighting  bravely  against  their  ozvn  kith  and  kin.  .  .  .  He 
claimed  something  more  thon  justice  from  the  British 
people  ;  he  claimed  their  gratitude.  (Cheers.)  It  was 
the  money  and  blood  of  India  which  had  built  up  the 
British  Empire  there.  (Cheers.)...  The  present  system 
was  not  only  an  iujustice  ;  it  was  a  gross  insult  to  the 
whole  Indian  nation.  (Cheers.)  He  had  been  in 
communication  with  the  War  Office  on  the  matter,  and 
had  been  told  that  the  Queen's  Warrant  forbade  Indian 
subjects  holding  commissions  in  the  Indian  army.' 

It  w^ould  be  unnecessary  to  read  further  to  learn  the 
degradation  of  Indian  character  under  British  rule. 
Although  debarred  of  all  promotion  and  compelled  to 
serve  in  the  lowest  rank  against  their  ovv^n  countrymen, 
against  their  own  flesh  and  blood,  they  obey.  True  to 
their  salt,  less  manly  and  chivalrous  than  common 
mercenaries  or  bandits,  they  slaughter  fathers,  broth- 
ers, sons  at  the  command  of  foreigners.  They  are 
proud  of  it.  The  fashion  of  their  grievance  is  that  they 
want  a  share  of  the  military  offices.  And  on  the  other 
hand  the  civilizing  English  cannot  spare  them — they 
want  all  good  things  for  themselves.  And  yet  the 
British  people  through  acts  of  Parliament  and  other 
means  '  had  often  pledged  themselves  to  treat  Indians 
exactly  as  British  subjects  in  England  !' 


24  IS   INDIA    HAPPY? 

Seconding  the  resolution,  Mr.  Mahtab  Singh  said 
that  '  as  loyal  subjects  they  wanted  to  warn  the  British 
Government  of  the  danger  of  its  present  policy,  which 
if  not  altered  would  turn  a  nation  of  patriotic  and  loyal 
subjects  into  rebels,  whose  aim  would  be  to  destroy  the 
British  rule.     (Cheers.)  ' 

The  resolution  was  carried  unaniraouslj'. 

Mr.  Romesh  Chunder  Dutt  moved  a  resolution  '  de- 
ploring all  legislation  restricting  self-government  in 
India.'  Under  Northbrook's  vice-royalty,  he  said, 
'  representative  government  was  first  introduced  into 
India,  which  conferred  upon  the  rate-payers  of  Cal- 
cutta the  right  to  select  two-thirds  of  their  municipal 
councillors.  Since  then  this  measure  has  worked  ex- 
tremely well,  and  the  new  municipal  council  had  trans- 
formed Calcutta  into  one  of  the  healthiest  places  in  In- 
dia. The  time  had  now  come  for  the  extension  of 
municipal  government  to  other  municipalities,  but  the 
present  Government  was  no  friend  of  municipal  govern- 
ment. It  had  been  striving  to  curtail  the  powers  of  the 
London  County  Council,  and  therefore  there  was  no 
wonder  that  it  was  trying  to  abrogate  Lord  North- 
brook's  valuable  measure.  (Shame.)  Never  within 
his  memory  had  there  been  such  a  state  of  alarm  thro2igh- 
out  the  zvhole  of  Bengal  as  had  been  caused  by  this  vteas- 
ure.  The  impression  was  spreading  that  it  was  7iot  pos- 
sible to  obtain  any  new  rights  by  constitutional  methods. 
There  had  been  forty  years  of  peace  and  loyalty,  and 
now  the  Government  by  its  action  was  teaching  a  very 
dangerous  lesson  to  the  people  of  India.     (Cheers.)  ' 

Mr.  R.  C.  Sen  said  '  it  was  a  mistake  to  trust  too 
much  to  the  generosity  of  the  English  people.' 

Mr.  Bipin  Chunder  Pal  moved  :  "  That  this  meet- 
ing condemns  the  new  Sedition  Law  of  India,  (i) 
which  makes  invidious  distinctions  between  different 
classes  of  her  Majesty's  subjects  ;  (2)  which  seeks  to 
restrict  the  free  discussion  of  Indian  measures  by  her 
Majesty's  Indian  subjects  in  England,  by  threats  of 
prosecution  on  their  return  to  India  ;  (3)  which  takes 
away  the  liberty  of  the  press  that  has  been  enjoyed  in 
India  for  over  half  a  century,  and  substitutes  a  method 


IS    INDIA   HAPPY.-*  25 

of  repression,  unworthy  of  the  British  goverument  ;  (4) 
which  empowers  magistrates  in  India,  who  are  heads 
of  the  police,  to  demand  security  for  good  behavior 
from  editors  of  newspapers,  to  refuse  such  security  when 
offered,  and  to  send  the  editors  to  jail  with  hard  labor 
without  trial  for  any  specific  offence  ;  .  .  ." 

No  people  in  the  world  have  said  more  in  censure  01 
the  French  methods  of  justice  exposed  by  the  case  of 
Dreyfus,  or  of  the  German  gag  laws  and  Imperial 
prosecutions  for  the  terrible  crime  of  speaking  as  you 
think,  called  lese  majestat,  than  the  English,  yet  here 
is  England  jailing  Indian  editors  without  trial,  through 
her  Dogberry  police  magistrates  and  depriving  her  In- 
dian subjects  of  the  right  of  free  speech.  This  is  the 
England  that,  as  Mr.  Asquith  says,  makes  the  ideas  ot 
order,  justice  and  humanitj',  '  solid,  vivid  realities'  in 
the  minds  and  lives  of  the  people  dependent  on  her. 

Mr.  Pal  enforced  his  resolution  by  declaring  that 
'  those  who  had  drawn  it  up  had  committed  sedition 
under  the  new  law  over  and  over  again.  (Eaughter 
and  cheers.)  Further  the  people  who  had  been  speak- 
ing that  afternoon  could  be  prosecuted  in  India  for 
their  speeches — that  is,  if  they  were  Indian  natives. 
If  they  were  English-born,  they  could  say  what  they 
liked.  The  freedom  of  the  Press  had  been  the  bulwark 
of  English  rule  in  India  for  the  past  forty  years.  The 
speech  of  the  previous  speaker  was  only  an  indication 
of  the  spirit  which  was  growing  up  amongst  the  young 
men  in  India.  There  was  a  spirit  of  unrest  and  dis- 
content which  was  spreading  in  quarters  of  which 
Goverument  knew  little.  Sedition  was  present  in  In- 
dia, and  if  the  government  shut  up  the  mouths  of  the 
educated  Indians,  who  alone  could  explain  to  their 
fellow-countrymen  what  British  rule  meant  to  India, 
and  how  necessary  it  was  that  it  should  continue,  it 
must  be  prepared  for  an  outburst  which  would  shake 
the  British  Empire  to  its  foundations.     (Cheers.)  ' 

It  would  plainly  seem  that  England  has  brought  her- 
self to  a  grave  dilemma.  She  is  convinced  that  if  she 
does  not  enforce  harsh  sedition  laws  which  shut  the 
mouths  of  the  educated  Indians  and  prevent  them  from 


26  IS    INDIA   HAPPY? 

'  explaining  to  their  fellow-couutrymcu  what  British 
rule  means  in  India,'  there  will  be  a  sedition,  and  here 
is  a  body  of  highly  intelligent  Indians  assuring  her 
that  if  she  does  not  repeal  those  obnoxious  laws  and 
give  the  educated  a  chance  to  smooth  the  situation  over 
to  the  masses  of  their  countrymen  there  will  be  '  an 
outburst  that  will  shake  the  British  Empire  to  its  foun- 
dations.'  In  other  words  British  rule  is  neither  safe  if 
it  is  explained  nor  if  it  is  not  explained  :  it  will  not 
bear  investigation  and  it  will  not  bear  not  being 
investigated. 

Having  this  expression  of  opinion  from  the  Hindus, 
let  us  consider  the  words  of  a  candid  Englishman,  Mr. 
Goldwin  Smith.  He  believes  that  India  "has  been 
steadily  administered  in  the  interest  of  the  Hindu." 
Granting  for  the  moment  only  that  this  is  so — we  do 
not  grant  it  longer — the  incapacity  of  England  to  civ- 
ilize is  even  the  more  shown  by  the  results,  for  her 
efforts  to  help  have  '  reduced  the  population  to  human 
sheep,  without  aspirations,  without  spur  to  self-im- 
provement of  any  kind.'  This  climax  of  seventy-five 
years  of  civilizing  effort  thoroughly  discredits  the  prin- 
ciple of  Imperialism.  "If,"  Mr.  Smith  says,  "empire 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  field  for  philanthropic  effort  and 
the  advancement  of  civilization,  it  may  safely  be  said 
that  nothing  in  that  way  equals,  or  ever  has  equalled, 
the  British  Empire  in  India.  For  the  last  three-quar- 
ters of  a  century  at  all  events,  the  Empire  has  been 
steadily  administered  in  the  interest  of  the  Hindu.  Yet 
what  is  the  result  ?  Two  hundred  millions  of  human 
sheep,  without  native  leadership,  without  patriotism, 
without  aspirations,  without  spur  to  self-improvement 
of  any  kind  ;  multiplying,  too  many  of  them,  in  abject 
poverty  and  in  infantile  dependence  on  a  government 
which  their  numbers  and  necessity  will  too  probably 
in  the  end  overwhelm.  Great  Britain  has  deserved 
and  won  the  respect  of  the  Hindu  ;  but  she  has  never 
won,  and  is  perhaps  now  less  likely  than  ever  to  win, 
his  love.  The  two  races  remain  perfectly  alien  to  each 
other.  Eord  Elgin  sorrowfully  observes,  that  there  is 
more  of  a  bond  between  man  and  dog  than  between 


SPECIMENS    OF    BRITISH    HUMANITY.  2"] 

Englishman  and  Hindu.  The  natives  generally,  hav- 
ing been  disarmed,  cannot  rise  against  the  conqueror  ; 
and  their  disaifection  is  shown  only  in  occasional  and 
local  outbreaks,  chiefly  of  a  religious  character,  or  in 
the  impotent  utterances  of  the  native  press."* 

Of  such  periodic  phenomena  as  Indian  plagues 
and  famines,  their  conduciveness  to  Hindu  happiness, 
and  British  responsibility  for  them,  I  shall  say  but  lit- 
tle. Julian  Hawthorn  and  Lee  Merewether,  after  per- 
sonal investigations  in  India  during  the  famine  plague 
of  1897,  agreed  that  not  less  than  "eight  million  per- 
sons had  alread)-  died  of  famine  and  disease  directly 
caused  therebj^  " — "  eight  times  the  population  of  New 
York  ;  nearly  twice  that  of  London,  "y  and  the  famine 
had  not  then  run  its  course.  Mr.  Hawthorn  tried 
lamely  to  exculpate  the  English  government  and  then 
said  :  "  It  is  true  that  at  the  moment  when  millions 
of  Indians  were  starving,  there  w^as  paid  in  London  for 
seats  to  see  the  Jubilee  viojiey  e'aough  to  avert  all  that 
ijiconccivable  suffering — yes,  and  much  of  it  was  paid 
by  Americans  ;  and  the  rest  was  paid  by  other  foreign- 
ers and  b}'  the  English  themselves.  //  ivas  a  vain  and 
selfish  expenditure  710  doubt ;  but  it  was  spent,  not  by  the 
Government,  but  by  private  persons.  They  were  like 
other  persons  all  over  the  ivorldy  As  if  the  waste  of 
these  resources  at  such  a  time  by  private  persons  in  the 
slightest  degree  mitigated  the  responsibility  and  crime 
of  the  English  nation  !  And  that  these  vain  and  self- 
ish spenders,  ourselves  included,  '  were  like  other  per- 
sons all  over  the  Vv^orld,'  is  the  very  thing  that  shows 
conclusively  that  these  civilized  people  '  all  over  the 
world  '  cannot  rule  a  subject  race  unselfishly. 

6.     British  Humanity  in  the  Soudan. 

The  facts,  we  believe,  warrant  this  statement  :  That 
lower  races  under  Imperial  rule  are  dealt  with  on  a 
code  of  principles  specially  framed  for  them,  and  differ- 
ing widely  from  the  principles  that  white  races  observe 


*"  The  Moral  of  the  Cuban  War,"  in  the  Forum,  Nov. 
+The  Cosmopolitan  Magazine,  1897,  pp.  372-3,  and  658. 


28  SPECIMENS    OF    BRITISH    HUMANITY. 

toward  one  another.  The  codes  for  the  lesser  races 
van,-.  Take  as  instance  the  Belgian  code  toward  the 
Congo  Free  State.  This  Free  State  "  is  not,"  says  the 
Saturday  Review,*  "free  in  an)'  sense  of  the  word. 
The  Belgians  have  replaced  the  slaverj'  thej^  found  by 
a  system  of  servitude  at  least  as  objectionable.  Of 
what  certain  Belgians  can  do  in  the  way  of  barbarit}' 
Englishmen  are  painfully  aware.  Mr.  Courtney  [in 
the  address  already  quoted]  mentions  an  instance  of  a 
Captain  Rom  who  ornamented  his  flowerbeds  with  the 
heads  of  twenty-one  natives  killed  in  a  punitive  expe- 
dition. This  is  the  Belgian  idea  of  the  most  effectual 
method  of  promoting  the  civilization  of  the  Congo. 
Exports  from  the  State  fall  seriously  short  of  imports  ; 
such  as  they  are,  they  are  maintained  not  by  legiti- 
mate commerce,  but  by  raids  made  on  the  ivory  stores 
of  luckless  native  chiefs  where  tribute  is  said  to  lie  in 
arrears.  The  tax-gatherer,  as  we  know  from  consular 
reports,  follows  every  step  of  life  in  the  Congo  State. 
Yet  expenditure  is  something  like  a  quarter  of  a  mil- 
lion sterling  beyond  its  income,  and  the  King  of  the 
Belgians  has  to  bear  the  burden  of  ^40,000  a  year  in 
order  that  Belgium  may  increase  her  trade  b}'  0.7  per 
cent."  England  claims  that  her  code  is  better  than 
this,  and  thence  makes  the  dizzy  j  ump  that  it  approaches 
the  stainless  and  perfect.  In  truth  it  is  a  code  for  lower 
races,  framed  to  keep  them  dependent  for  unknown 
periods,  and  framed  with  the  intent  to  give  the  English 
trade  benefits.  Her  code,  as  already  indicated,  is 
shrewder  business  policy. 

But  is  the  English  page  so  clean  and  white  ?  Was 
Captain  Rom  an  exceptional  brute  to  the  wretched 
Africans  ?  It  would  not  seem  so  if  we  contemplate  the 
British  Soudan  campaign.  There  .seem  to  have  been 
atrocities  there  well  nigh  unheard  of  in  '  civilized  ' 
warring  before.  Mr.  E.  N.  Bennett,  an  eye  witness, 
tells  of  these  in  the  Januar}'    Contemporary  Review,  f 


♦December  17,  1898. 

tOf  Mr.  Benuett's  title  to  a  hearing  the  N.  Y.  Tribune  says  :  "  He  is  not 
to  be  coughed  down  as  a  credulous  schoolmaster,  who  ought  to  have  con- 
fined hi.s  e:ierr;ie.s  to  eutoniology  and  nrchccology,  and  to  have  kept  at  a 
safe  distance  from  the  battle-field." 


SPECIMENS   OF    BRITISH    HUMANITY.  29 

"Ou  our  left  along  the  lower  slopes  of  Gebel  Surg- 
ham  a  large  number  of  camp-followers  and  native 
ser\'ants  were  already  busy  among  the  white-clad  fig- 
ures which  lay  stretched  in  little  groups  as  our  shell 
fire  or  the  long-range  volleys  of  the  Lee-Metfords  had 
struck  them  down.  These  looters  had  armed  them- 
selves somehow  or  other  with  rifles,  spears,  and  even 
clubs,  and  made  short  work  of  any  wounded  man  they 
came  across.  Poor  wretches  who  in  their  agony  had 
crawled  under  the  scanty  shade  of  a  rock  or  shrub  were 
clubbed  to  death  or  riddled  with  bullets  by  the  irres- 
ponsible brutality  of  these  native  servants,  who  were 
in  such  wholesome  dread  of  a  Dervish,  even  when  pros- 
trate, that  they  frequently  fired  several  shots  into 
bodies  already  dead  before  they  advanced  to  strip  the 
corpse  of  its  gibbeh  of  arms.  .  .  .  This  wholesale 
slaughter  was  not  confined  to  Arab  servants.  It  was 
stated  that  orders  had  been  given  to  kill  the  wounded. 
Whether  this  was  so  or  not  I  do  not  know,  but  cer- 
tainly no  protest  was  made  when  the  Soudanese  dis- 
patched scores  of  wounded  men  who  lay  in  their  path. 
The  Dervishes  who  were  stretched  on  the  sand  within 
a  few  yards  were  bayoneted,  or,  in  some  instances, 
stabbed  with  their  own  spears.  .  .  Arabs  who  lay  further 
out  in  the  desert  at  some  little  distance  from  the  line 
of  march,  and  happened,  unfortunately  for  themselves, 
to  move  or  turn  over  in  their  agony,  were  immediately 
pierced  by  rifle  bullets.  On  some  occasions  shots  were 
fired  into  the  bodies  of  wounded  men  at  such  close 
quarters  that  the  smell  of  burning  flesh  was  positively 
sickening. ' ' 

Justification  is  pleaded  because  the  wounded  Arab 
sometimes  treacherously  slaughters  his  enemy,  but  Mr. 
Bennett  replies  that  the  instances  of  this  '  are,  after  all, 
extremely  few  in  number,'  and  that  '  the  wounded 
Dervish  has  become  dangerous  because  he  fully  ex- 
pects to  be  killed.'     He  continues  : 

"  But  no  justification  whatever  exists  for  the  butchery 
of  unar77ied  or  manifestly  helpless  men  lying  wounded 
on  the  ground.  This  certainly  took  place  after  the 
battle  of  Omdurman.     Dervishes  who  lay  with  shat- 


30  SPKCIMENS   OF    BRITISH    HUMANITY. 

tered  legs  or  arms,  absolutely  without  weapons,  were 
ba5'oneted  and  shot  without  mercy.  This  unsoldierly 
work  was  not  even  left  to  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
black  troops  ;  our  own  British  soldiers  took  part  in  it. 
At  one  place,  on  the  western  slopes  of  Surgham,  I 
noticed  a  fine  old  Dervish  with  a  gray  beard,  who,  dis- 
abled by  a  wound  in  his  leg,  lay  prostrate  beside  a 
small  bush.  He  had  apparently  attempted  to  escape 
toward  Omdurman  with  the  rest  of  the  Khalifa's  forces 
who  survived,  but  his  wound  had  prevented  this,  and 
the  fugitive  had  sunk  down  on  the  ground  about  eight 
yards  behind  his  son,  a  boy  of  seventeen,  whose  right 
leg  had  also  been  lacerated  b)^  a  bullet.  Neither  the 
father  nor  the  son  liad  any  tveapons  at  all,  yet  a  High- 
lander stepped  out  of  the  ranks  and  drove  his  bayonet 
through  the  old  man's  chest.  The  victim  of  this  need- 
less brutality  begged  in  vain  for  mercj',  and  clutched 
the  soldier's  bayonet,  reddening  his  hands  with  his 
own  blood  in  a  futile  attempt  to  prevent  a  second 
thrust.  No  effort  was  made  by  any  comrade  or  officer 
to  prevent  this  gratuitous  bit  of  butchery,  nor,  of 
course,  could  au)^  ofiicer  have  interfered  very  well,  if 
the  soldier — as  was  said  to  be  the  case — was  only  act- 
ing in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  general  in 
command." 

The  general  in  command  was  the  Sirdar,  that  Lord 
Kitchener  who  has  been  making  the  noble  appeals  to 
the  British  purse  to  found  a  college  near  the  site  of 
these  slaughters,  for  the  advancement  of  humanity. 
Let  us  follow  Mr.  Bennett's  description  of  British  hu- 
manity a  little  farther. 

' '  No  attempt  was  made,  either  on  the  day  of  the 
battle  or  next  day,  to  do  auj'thing  for  the  wounded 
Dervishes.  ...  To  lie  for  two  days  without  water  in 
the  heat  ot  a  Soudan  August  is  bad  enough,  but  when 
the  natural  thirst  is  augmented  by  the  fever  which  in- 
variably accompanies  gunshot  wounds  the  torture  must 
be  terrible.  .  .  .  Hundreds  of  wounded  Dervishes  who 
had  failed  to  escape  from  the  field  were  left  to  perish 
miserably  within  easy  reach  of  our  succour  had  it  been 
forthcoming. ' ' 


SPECIMENS   OP    BRITISH   HUMANITY.  31 

The  Story   of  unspeakable    British    barbarism  con- 
tinues : 

' '  There  was  another  feature  in  our  capture  of  Omdur- 
man  which  v/as  truly  deplorable.  By  the  time  we  had 
repulsed  the  last  Dervish  attack  and  were  rapidly  ad- 
vancing upon  Omdurman,  the  streets  leading  to  the 
southern  exits  of  the  town  were  crowded  with  fugitives. 
In  addition  to  mounted  Baggaras  and  Dervish  infantry, 
a  chaotic  mass  of  non-combatants,  men,  women  and 
children,  dragging  after  them  camels,  horses,  and 
donkeys,  laden  with  goods  and  chattels — all  this  con- 
fused stream  of  human  beings  and  animals  was  press- 
ing madly  forward  in  panic-stricken  flight.  Orders 
were  given  to  fire  upon  the  fugitives,  and,  as  the 
artillerymen  on  the  gunboats  from  their  raised  posi- 
tions could  see  well  over  the  walls,  a  deadly  fire  was 
opened  upon  the  crowded  thoroughfares.  One  street 
especially,  which  led  down  to  the  river,  was  swept  by 
a  frightful  hail  of  Maxim  bullets,  which  mowed  the 
fugitives  down  in  scores.  .  .  .  Next  day  some  five 
hundred  dead  bodies  lay  scattered  about  the  streets  of 
Omdurman,  and  among  them  were  corpses  of  women 
and  little  children.  .  ,  .  Two  women  were  bending 
sorrowfully  over  the  dead  body  of  a  Dervish,  when  a 
non-commissioned  oflScer  went  up  and  deliberately  shot 
one  of  the  women  with  a  revolver. 

The  attention  of  those  who  erroneously  think  that  the 
Anglo-Saxon  is  an  humane  and  civilizing  ra:ce  is  re- 
spectfully called  to  Mr.  Bennett's  conclusions  : 

"  I  have  written  the  above  paragraphs  with  the  ut- 
most reluctance,  but  it  is  certainly  high  time  that  the 
conscience  of  civilized  natio?is  realized  that  some  consider- 
ations are  due  even  to  a  semi-civilized  or  barbarous  en- 
emy. The  conduct  of  the  Belgians  in  the  Congo  Free 
State,  the  French  in  Algeria,  the  Germans  in  the 
Camaroons,  the  Russians  in  Central  Asia,  ourselves  in 
South  Africa  and  the  Soudan — the  coyiduct  of  the  various 
nations  who  are  sharittg  in  the  partition  of  Africa  and 
Asia,  seems  to  be  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  rights 
of  the  native  in  a  state  of  war  are  practically  nil.  .  .  . 
' '  Christian  England  goes  almost  wild  with  indig- 


32  SPECIMENS    OF    BRITISH    HUMANITY. 

uatiou  if  Moslems  commit  atrocities.  .  .  .  But  Prot- 
estant sympathies  seem  almost  incapable  of  extension 
beyond  the  limits  of  Christendom.  No  public  sy?npathy 
is  bestowed  tipon  the  wretched  natives  zvho,  when  they  iyi- 
air  inevitable  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  civilized  invader, 
ate  either  butchered  as  they  lie  wounded  07i  the  field  or  are 
left  to  die  without  ayi  effort  to  save  them.'" 

In  the  London  Morning  Post  of  September  29  Lieu- 
tenant Winston  Churchill  wrote.* 

"  We  had  not  gone  far  when  individual  Dervishes 
began  to  walk  toward  the  advancing  squadrons,  throw- 
ing down  their  weapons,  holding  up  their  hands,  and 
imploring  mercy.  The  laws  of  war  do  not  adinit  the 
right  of  a  beaten  enemy  to  quarter.  The  victor  is  not 
obliged  to  accept  his  surrender.  Of  his  charity  he  may 
do  so,  but  there  is  no  obligation,  provided,  of  course, 
that  he  makes  it  clear  to  the  suppliant  that  he  must 
continue  to  fight." 

The  presumption  is  that  these  suppliants  for  mercy 
were  murdered  by  the  world-civilizing  and  humane 
English. 

If  the  general  assumption  of  the  civilized  Powers  of 
Europe,  including  England,  is  that  '  the  rights  of  the 
native  in  a  state  of  war  are  practically  nil,'  what  will 
be  their  opinion  of  these  rights  when  the  natives  are 
not  in  a  state  of  war  ?  This  question  searches  civili- 
zation through  and  through.  The  answer  to  it  is  that 
the  treatment  of  the  natives  in  peace  will  be  as  far  be- 
low the  standard  of  treatment  of  equal  whites,  as  the 
treatment  of  the  natives  in  a  state  of  war  is  below  the 
treatment  of  the  whites  in  a  state  of  war. 

The  just  conclusion  from  this  review  of  English  pur- 
poses, achievement,  and  methods,  is  that  we  should 
not  be  helping  the  world  by  going  to  the  aid  of 
English  Imperialism.  The  vaunted  battle  for  civiliza- 
tion that  she  has  been  fighting  has  been  for  herself. 
By  going  to  her  rescue  in  the  name  of  Anglo-Saxonism 
we  should  be  helping  to  enthrone  English  methods  of 
selfishness  over  mankind.     Let  England  change  before 


♦Quoted  by  Mr.  Eeuuett. 


SPSCIMEXS    OF   BRITISH    HUMANITY.  33 

she  asks  this.  I^et  us  refuse  to  aid  her  until  she  does 
change.  I^et  us  act  on  the  truth  that  the  Anglo-Sax- 
onism  represented  by  British  ImperiaHsm  is  not  a  good, 
that  it  is  coarse,  grasping,  domineering  and  cruel,  and 
if  she  will  walk  in  that  path  let  her  walk  alone.  .L,et 
us  save  our  branch  of  the  race  for  better  things,  and 
restrain  ourselves  from  being  used  as  a  tool  of  her 
folly.  I,et  us  denounce  her  too  flimsy  hypocrisy  and 
do  what  we  can,  in  conjunction  with  her  real  states- 
men and  her  nobler  citizens,  to  win  her  to  a  more  hon- 
est and  honorable  national  life. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Our  Crime  in  the  Philippine  Islands. 


1.    The  New  Policy  of  Corruption. 

We  now  propose  to  show  that  the  new  American 
Imperialism  is  a  strict  reproduction  of  the  British  Im- 
perialism that  has  been  described.  If  that  is  lovely 
and  desirable,  so  is  its  American  imitation.  But  let  us 
permit  American  Imperialists  to  speak  for  themselves 
and  to  disclose  their  own  character  as  we  have  allowed 
the  English  to  do.  This  will  show  whether  the  Anglo- 
Saxonism  that  would  be  carried  to  the  Philippines  and 
elsewhere  is  worth  carrying,  or  should  be  watchfully 
kept  at  home  and  extinguished. 

Charles  Denby,  our  one  time  minister  to  China  and 
now  a  member  of  McKinley's  commission  to  study  the 
Philippines,  has  published  a  brief  paper  in  answer  to 
the  question  "Shall  We  Keep  the  Philippines?"  * 
Being  a  man  of  prominence  and  authority'  among  the 
expansionists  we  give  his  words  their  due  weight. 
They  express  the  change  in  American  morality  toward 
the  world  which  expansionists  are  inculcating  and 
practising.  This  man  is  the  type  of  those  who  sur- 
round and  influence  the  president.  He  defines  a  hard 
and  selfish  national  policy  toward  the  weak.  Every 
important  thing  that  has  happened,  everything  that  is 
happening,  goes  to  establish  this  proposition: 

That  hard  and  selfish  meyi,  and  hard  and  selfish  poli- 
cies^ will  coyitrol  our  imperialist  relations;  that  the  kind 
and  well-meaning  will  be  overruled.      There  is  no  inten- 


*The  Forum,  November,  1898. 


NEW   POLICY   OF   CORRUPTION,  35 

Hon  of  mildyiess,  humanity  ajid  justice,  in  the  forces  that 
are  now  gaining  ascendency  in  Amcricayi  life. 

Here  is  Mr.  Denby,  the  type  of  the  hard  and  selfish 
imperialist  politician  of  the  new  school,  openly  im- 
pressing upon  the  country  this  crass  and  vulgar 
European  doctrine.     Thus  Mr.  Denby: 

"...  We  have  become  a  great  people.  We  have  a 
great  commerce  to  take  care  of  We  have  to  compete 
with  the  commercial  nations  of  the  world  in  far-distant 
markets.  Co^nmerce,  not  politics  is  king.  The  manu- 
facturer ayid  the  merchant  dictate  to  diplomacy,  and  con- 
trol elections.  The  art  of  arts  is  the  extension  of 
commercial  relations, — in  plain  language,  the  selling 
of  native  products  and  manufactured  goods. 

"I  learned  what  I  know  of  diplomacy  in  a  severe 
school.  I  found  among  my  colleagues  not  the  least  hesi- 
tation in  proposing  to  their  respective  Governments  to  do 
anything  which  was  supposed  to  be  conducive  to  their 
interests.  There  cayi  be  no  other  rule  for  the  government 
of  all persojis  who  are  charged  with  the  conduct  of  affairs 
than  the  promotion  of  the  welfare  of  their  respective 
countries.^  ^ 

This  then  is  what  expansion  and  that  noble  'world- 
diplomacy'  with  which  our  ears  are  being  daily  tickled, 
bring  us  to!  Here  is  Mr.  Denby,  corrupt  and  confes- 
sedly corrupted  by  this  high  diplomacy  which  is  to 
make  us  a  sainted  and  respected  nation  before  man- 
kind, glorying  in  the  corruption  and  trying  to  corrupt 
his  countrymen.  If  there  was  ever  needed  proof  that 
we  should  keep  ourselves  unspotted  from  the  filth  and 
foulness  of  those  European  and  Asiatic  complications 
that  territory  stealing  will  assuredly  bring,  here  is  that 
proof.  For  contact  with  European  codes  inflicts  those 
codes  upon  us.  Denby  continues  his  exposure  of 
Imperialism,  and  applies  its  Christlike  morality  to  the 
Philippines: 

"We  have  the  right  as  conquerors  to  hold  the  Phil- 
ippines. We  have  the  right  to  hold  them  as  part  pay- 
ment of  a  war  indemnity.  This  policy  may  be  charac- 
terized as  unjust  to  Spain;  but  is  the  result  of  the  for- 


36  NEW   rOI,ICY   OF   CORRUPTION. 

tunes  of  war.     All  nations  recognize  that  the  conqueror 
may  dictate  the  terms  of  peace." 

"I  am  in  favor  of  holding  the  Philippines  because  I 
cannot  conceive  of  any  alternative  to  our  doing  so, 
except  the  seizure  of  territory  in  China;  and  I  prefer  to 
hold  them  rather  than  to  oppress  further  the  helpless 
Government  and  people  of  China.  I  want  China  to 
preserve  her  autonomy,  to  become  great  and  prosper- 
ous; and  /  leant  these  results  not  for  the  iyitercsts  oj 
China,  hit  for  our  interests.  I  am  7iot  the  agent  or 
attorney  of  China;  ayid,  as  an  American,  I  do  not  look  to 
the  promotion  of  China' s  interests,  or  Spain's,  or  a7iy 
other  country' s — bid  simply  of  otir  own. 

"The  whole  world  sees  in  China  a  splendid  market 
for  our  native  products, — our  timber,  our  locomotives, 
our  rails,  our  coal  oil,  our  sheetings,  our  mining-plants 
and  numberless  other  articles." 

"Dewey's  victory  is  an  epoch  in  the  aiFairs  of  the  Far 
East.  We  hold  our  heads  higher.  We  are  coming  to 
our  own.  We  are  stretching  out  our  hands  for  what 
nature  meant  should  be  ours.  We  are  taking  our 
proper  rank  among  the  nations  of  the  world.  We  are 
after  markets,  the  greatest  markets  noiv  existing  in  the 
world.  Along  luith  these  markets  will  go  our  beneficent 
institutions;  and  humanity  zvill  bless  us.'' 

This  is  an  exquisite  example  of  the  British  cant  and 
bathos  which  is  exhibiting  itself  serenely  in 
the  new  Imperial  America.  Wherever  the  basest  ot 
international  principles  of  pilfering  and  freebooting  are 
applied  to  gain  markets,  "along  with  these  markets  will 
go  our  beneficent  institutions."  The  halo  of  our  bless- 
ed institutions  will  pervade  and  rectify  rapacity  and 
wrong!  But  it  will  not.  We  shall  not  build  beneficent 
institutions  on  ruffianism  and  rapacity.  'We  are  after 
markets,  the  greatest  markets  in  the  world,'  we  do  not 
care  what  we  do  to  get  them:  we  will  cheerfully  rob 
and  kill,  we  will  wrench  their  fatherland  from  the  weak 
and  call  it  ours,  we  admit  it  in  cold  blood,  but  like 
the  praying  professional  murderer,  we  piously  declare 
that  God  and  humanity  will  bless  us  in  it.  How  did 
our  war  of  humanity  to  rescue  Cuba  establish  the  irrel- 


NSW    POLICY   OF    CORRUPTION.  37 

evaut  and  unheard-of  conclusion  that  unless  we  take 
the  Philippines  there  is  'no  alternative  except  the  seiz- 
ure of  territory  in  China?'  There  is  no  bridge  between 
these  two  irreconcilable  opposites  excepting  the  benefi- 
cent institution  of  American  rapacity.  The  Philippines 
have  done  us  no  wrong,  China  has  done  us  no  wrong, 
but  because  Spain  wronged  Cuba  and  we  had  compas- 
sion, we  do  no  wrong  in  wronging  either  the  Philip- 
pines or  China.     This  is  the  Imperialists'  creed. 

Now  we  do  not  expect  to  reach  such  men  as  Mr. 
Denby  or  Mr.  Denby's  type — the  president,  the  advis- 
ers of  the  president,  the  whole  tribe  of  commercial, 
political,  and  newspaper  Imperialists,  who  are  hound- 
ing the  nation  to  crime.  "Commerce,  not  politics,  is 
king.  The  manufacturer  and  the  merchant  dictate  to 
diplomacy,  and  control  elections.'''  We  realize  this. 
But  we  turn  away  from  these  classes  to  the  people.  We 
think  that  when  they  realize  the  brazen  fraud  being 
practised  on  them,  they  will  decide  to  control  elections, 
not  only  to  put  an  end  to  the  dishonest  and  ruffianly 
policy  of  Imperialism,  but  to  put  an  end  to  the  suprem- 
acy of  commerce  over  man. 

But  Mr.  Denby  has  not  even  yet  conveyed  to  us  all 
the  light  he  has  in  him.  In  a  more  recent  article*  he 
presents  Imperialist  principles  in  their  engaging  naked- 
ness without  the  usual  shreds  of  moral  clothing. 

"If,"  he  sa5's,  "the  argument  made  herein  has  any 
force,  the  legal  and  constitutional  difficulties  which 
were  quoted  against  expansion  have  disappeared,  and 
the  cold,  hard,  practical  question  alone  remains.  Will 
the  possession  of  these  islands  benefit  us  as  a  nation? 
If  it  will  not,  set  them  free  toviorrozv,  and  let  their  peo- 
ple, if  they  please,  cut  each  other's  throats,  or  play  what 
pranks  they  please.  To  this  coniplexio7i  we  vmst  come  at 
last,  that,  unless  it  is  beneficial  for  us  to  hold  these  islands, 
we  should  turii  them  loose. ' ' 

We  ask  this  question:  Why,  this  being  the  mind 
and  purpose  of  our  imperialist  politicians  and  commer- 
cialists,  are  they  allowed  to  grimace  and  pose  before 

•The  Forum,  February,  1899. 


38  McKINIvEY    PROCLAIMS    WAR. 

the  nation  as  philanthropists  and  moralists?  Why  do 
we  not  enforce  upon  them  silence  about  the  good  they 
intend  to  do  the  conquered  savages,  when  it  is  an 
acknowledged  lie?  'Let  the  Filipinos  cut  each  other's 
throats  unless  the  appropriation  of  their  country  will 
help  our  trade.  Damn  the  good  we  might  do  them. 
We  are  not  in  this  expansion  business  for  their  good.' 
It  is  true  we  are  not,  but  we  command  you  hereafter 
to  stop  telling  us  that  we  are.  We  propose  to  hold 
this  argument  on  your  basis,  that  of  hard,  brutal  self- 
ishness, and  to  decide  whether  it  is  best  for  us  to  put 
ourselves  and  the  peoples  absorbed  into  5''0ur  selfish 
hands  by  adopting  your  Imperialist  policy.  And  is  it 
too  solemn  a  question  to  press  upon  the  moral  expan- 
sionists, whether  they  think  in  their  own  unselfish 
minds  that  they  will  be  able  to  overcome  and  rule  these 
selfish  commercial  Imperialists  and  keep  them  in  the 
paths  of  righteousness  after  the  deed  is  done?  If  they 
are  so  moonstruck  let  them  study  the  forces  that  now 
rule  this  country,  and  compare  them  with  the  paths  of 
righteousness. 

Mr.  Denby,  who  is  willing  the  Filipinos  shall  cut 
each  other's  throats  if  preventing  them  will  not  fill  our 
pockets,  has  one  more  word  which  makes  an  easy 
transition  from  Imperialist  theory  to  Imperialist  prac- 
tice. He  writes  as  an  inspired  commercial  prophet 
and  a  poet: 

"In  other  lands  and  other  wars  the  condition  of  the 
conquered  people  has  been  hard  and  deplorable.  In 
our  case  we  march  bearing  gifts,  the  choicest  gifts — 
liberty  and  hope  and  happiness.  We  carry  with  us  all 
that  gives  to  the  flower  of  life  its  perfume.  The  dusky 
East  rises  at  our  coming-  and  the  Filipino  springs  to 
his  feet  and  becomes  a  free  man.  This  is  not  poetry, 
but  reality  wrought  out  by  a  people  to  whom  freedom 
is  the  breath  of  life,  and  who  would  scorn  to  enslave  a 
country  or  a  race." 

2.     McKiiiley's  Proclamatioti  of  War. 

When  our  Congress  passed  the  resolutions  which 
involved  us  in  war  with  Spain  it  pledged  the  following: 


McKINI^^V  PR0CI,AIMS  WAR.  39 

Fourth:  That  the  United  States  hereby  disclaims  any  dispo- 
sition or  intention  to  exercise  sovereignty,  jurisdiction,  or  con- 
trol over  said  island  [Cuba],  except  for  the  pacification  thereof, 
and  asserts  its  determination,  whett  that  is  accomplished,  to  leave 
the  government  and  control  0/  the  island  to  its  people. 

In  his  message  to  Congress  of  December,  1897, 
McKinley  recorded  and  pledged  himself  in  now  famous 
and  memorable  language.     Said  he: 

''I  speak  not  of  forcible  amiexation,  because  that  is  not  to  be 
thought  of,  and  under  our  code  0/  morality  that  would  be  crim- 
inal aggressioti." 

But  one  year  later,  on  December  21,  1898,  this  man 
on  his  own  initiative,  without  the  authority  of  Con- 
gress or  the  people,  more  than  a  month  before  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  was  ratified  by  the  Senate,  and  when 
there  was  no  certainty  that  it  would  be  ratified,  issued 
the  following  astounding  proclamation  to  the  Filipinos: 

"With  the  signature  of  the  treaty  of  peace  between  the  United 
States  and  Spain  by  their  respective  plenipotentiaries,  at  Paris, 
on  the  loth  inst,  and  as  the  result  of  the  victories  of  American 
arms,  the  future  control,  disposition,  and  government  of  the 
Philippine  Islands  are  ceded  to  the  United  States.  In  fulfil- 
ment of  the  rights  of  sovereignty  thus  acquired  and  the 
responsible  obligations  of  government  thus  assumed,  the  actual 
occupation  and  administration  of  the  entire  group  of  the  Phil- 
ippiue  Islands  becomes  immediately  necessary,  and  the  mil- 
itary government  heretofore  maintained  by  the  United  States 
in  the  city,  harbor,  and  bay  of  Manila  is  to  be  extended  with 
all  possible  despatch  to  the  whole  of  the  ceded  territory. 

"In  performing  this  duty  the  military  commander  of  the 
United  States  is  enjoined  to  make  known  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Philippine  Islands,  that  in  succeeding  to  the  sovereignty  of 
Spain,  in  severing  the  former  political  relations  of  the  inhabit- 
ants and  in  establishing  a  new  political  power,  the  authority  of 
the  United  States  is  to  be  exerted  for  the  security  of  the  per- 
sons and  property  of  the  people  of  the  islands,  and  for  the  con- 
firmation of  all  their  private  rights  and  relations.  It  will  be  the 
duty  of  the  commander  of  the  forces  of  occupation  to  announce 
and  proclaim  in  the  most  public  manner  that  we  come,  not  as 
invaders  or  conquerors,  but  as  friends,  to  protect  the  natives  in 
their  homes,  in  their  employments,  and  in  their  personal  and 
religious  rights. 

"All  persons  who,  either  by  active  aid  or  by  honest  submis- 
sion, co-operate  with  the  government  of  the  United  States  to 
give  effect  to  these  beneficent  purposes,  will  receive  the  reward 
of  its  support  and  protection.  All  others  will  be  brought  within 
the  lawful  rule  we  have  assumed,  with  firmness  if  need  be,  but 
without  severity  so  far  as  may  be  possible. 


40  McKIlSri.BY   PROCI.A.IMS    WAR  . 

"Within  the  absohite  domain  of  military  authorit}-,  which 
necessarily  is  and  must  remain  supreme  iu  the  ceded  territory 
until  the  legislation  of  the  United  States  shall  otherwise  pro- 
vide, etc." 

This  proclamation  drove  the  Filipinos  into  war 
against  the  United  States.  There  was  nothing  left  for 
them  to  do  unless  they  consented  to  national  enslave- 
ment. It  was  not  only  natural  but  right  that  they 
should  go  to  war  against  us.  Our  Chief  Man  had 
notified  them  by  arbitrary  degree  that  if  they  did  not 
submit  to  the  usurped  authority  of  the  United  States 
— "the  absolute  domain  of  military  authority,"  he 
called  it — they  would  be  forced  into  submission  by 
shell  and  grapeshot.  "Honest  submission,"  or  death: 
they  had  their  choice.  "Honest  submission,"  or 
"forcible  annexation."  All  who  did  not  honestly  sub- 
mit to  the  proclamation  of  the  tyrant  were  to  be 
"brought  within  the  lawful  rule  we  have  assumed, 
with  firmness  if  need  be."  On  the  5th  of  February 
that  firmness  began  to  be  applied  and  4000  heroic  Fili- 
pinos who  could  not  honestly  submit  to  the  self-made 
despot  were  killed.  The  man  who  killed  them  was 
William  McKinley.  The  death  of  each  one  of  them 
was  groundless  man-slaughter,  McKinley  was  their 
murderer.  He  was  their  self-condemned  murderer, 
convicted  by  his  own  words  of  one  year  before.  "I 
speak  not  of  forcible  annexation,  because  that  is  not  to 
be  thought  of,  and  under  our  code  of  morality  that  would 
be  crimiyial  aggression.'''' 

Under  the  light  of  this  solemn  promise  and  its  bloody 
repudiation  McKinley  reveals  himself  to  be  the  crown- 
ing fraud  and  hypocrite  of  the  age,  who  has  no  right  to 
respect  from  any  honest  man  in  the  United  States.  He 
originally  declared  a  true  American  principle,  that  we 
cannot  take  any  form  of  authority  over  a  people  that  is 
opposed  to  that  authority  without  criminal  aggression 
and  breaking  our  code  of  morality;  this  code  holds  of 
Cuba,  of  the  Philippines,  and  of  every  foot  of  ground 
not  our  own  under  the  sun  that  our  cupidity  might  be 
disposed  to  seize.  The  breaking  of  this  code,  con- 
sciously held  and  publicly  announced,  was  therefore 


AI,L   RIGHTS    FORFEITED.  41 

an  act  of  detestable  pirac3\  bringing  shame  and  dis- 
honor upon  the  whole  nation. 

The  administration  and  the  impeiialist  press  have 
striven  to  convince  onr  people  that  the  Filipinos  are 
responsible  for  the  war.  This  is  one  of  the  lies  that  we 
must  tell  each  other  to  save  a  last  remnant  of  our  self- 
respect.  But  it  is  nevertheless  a  lie  with  no  m.itigation. 
McKinlej'  declared  war  in  his  Proclamation,  and  the 
Filipinos  began  hostilities.  The  feeble  McKinley 
doubtless  houesth^  hoped  that  thej'  would  honestly 
submit  to  his  declaration  that  they  were  to  be  as  a  con- 
quered and  subject  people  to  the  United  States,  with- 
out the  sad  necessity  of  being  obliged  to  forcibly  con- 
quer them.  The  subterfuge  did  not  work.  They  had 
never  acknowledged  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States:  for  the  United  States  to  declare  sovereignty  was 
therefore  for  the  United  States  to  declare  war. 

After  the  "criminal  aggression"  ofMcKinley's  proc- 
lamation that  a  state  of  virtual  war  already  existed, 
that  they  must  submit  or  be  killed,  there  was  nothing 
for  them  to  do  but  to  fight.  And  every  true  American 
who  resents  this  dastardly  aggression  by  the  president 
upon  a  harmless  race  of  barbarians,  should  be  deeply 
thankful  that  they  did  fight,  and  must  hope  that  our 
arms  will  not  be  able  to  subdue  them.  No  honorable 
American  can  uphold  the  criminal  attempt  of  American 
potentates  to  deprive  a  v/eak  race  of  its  liberty  in  the 
nanie  of  liberty.  As  libertj^-loving  American  citizens 
it  is  our  duty  to  uphold  the  Filipinos  in  their  righteous 
and  patriotic  attempt  to  keep  our  yoke  from  falling  on 
them. 

3.     All  Cur  Rights  Forfeited. 

For  those  who  hesitate  at  this  let  us  examine  the 
president's  rights  when  he  proclaimed  honest  submis- 
sion or  kind  but  firm  death  to  the  Filipinos,  i.  There 
^yas  no  technical,  formal,  legal,  or  constitutional  sanc- 
tion for  his  proclamation.  2.  There  would  have  been 
no  right  or  sanction  for  it  if  the  peace  treaty  had  been 
ratified  when  he  issued  it. 

Let  us  first  consider  what  rights  we  had  in  the  Phil- 


42  ALIv  RIGHTS  FORFEITED. 

ippines  before  the  treaty  was  approved,  remembering 
that  its  subsequent  approval  was  not  retroactive,  and 
could  not  lend  legalit)'  to  anything  that  was  done 
before.  Now  whether  we  had  any  after  its  ratification, 
we  certainly  had  no  status  of  authority  in  the  Philip- 
pines before  that  act.  We  were  there  purely  as  oppon- 
ents of  Spain.  We  were  not  there  as  conquerors  of  the 
Filipinos,  but  as  conquerors  of  Spain;  the  Filipinos  had 
helped  us  drive  Spain  out.  When  hostilities  ceased 
the  islands  were  not  ours  except  by  temporary  occu- 
pation. They  were  not  ours  either  legally  or  morally. 
Spain  had  not  ceded  them  and  we  had  not  decided  to 
accept  or  even  ask  for  them.  The  only  power  in 
America  that  could  make  our  request  for  them  legal 
and  binding,  or  accept  them  if  offered,  was  the  Senate, 
and  that  had  not  done  so.  The  propositions  drawn  up 
by  the  Peace  Commissioners  at  Paris  were  merely  an 
arrangement  by  which  the  United  States,  acting  through 
the  Senate  as  ordered  in  the  Constitution,  could  request 
or  demand  the  islands  of  Spain  if  it  saw  fit.  The  Sen- 
ate had  not  acted  on  the  treaty  and  had  consequently 
not  even  decided  to  ask  for  the  Philippines.  Our  rights 
even  technically  were  therefore  nil. 

A  proclamation  of  sovereignty  from  the  president 
when  the  whole  question  whether  we  should  take  or 
claim  the  islands  was  pending,  was  justified  by  noth- 
ing but  the  arbitrary  will  of  that  ruler.  It  was  no  less 
an  outrage  than  if  he  should  proclaim  our  sovereignty 
over  Canada,  Ireland  or  the  British  Indies.  The  act 
was  an  insult  to  Spain  and  a  profligate  attack  upon  the 
Filipinos. 

Having  issued  this  unlawful  proclamation  and  so 
declared  war  on  the  Philippine  Islanders,  we  forfeited 
all  further  claims  over  them  excepting  such  as  we  might 
win  by  force  if  our  challenge  to  war  were  taken  up. 
After  that  proclamation  the  ratification  of  the  treaty 
was  a  dead  letter,  for  by  our  unlawful  action  all  possi- 
bility of  obtaining  the  Philippines  legally  or  morally 
was  lost.  The  question  was  now  between  us  and  them 
and  was  one  of  force.  Of  course  if  they  chose  to  accept 
the  position  of  a  people  conquered  by  us  without  being 


SPAIN'S  EMPTY  SOVEREIGNTY.  43 

conquered,  that  was  their  business;  but  legally  and 
morally  they  ought  not  to  have  accepted  that  humili- 
ation, and  they  did  not  do  so.  The  president's  impu- 
dent aggression  also  deserved  anything  but  success. 

To  recapitulate:  as  we  now  stand  we  have  no  rights 
in  the  Philippines  and  can  obtain  none  except  by  brute 
force.  We  ruled  ourselves  out  by  McKinley's  act  of 
usurpation.  Spain  would  have  been  justified  in  resent- 
ing that  act  had  she  been  able,  and  Spain  being  unable 
the  natives  were  justified.  Until  the  acceptance  of  the 
treaty  by  both  nations  our  policy  in  the  Islands  could 
be  only  provisional.  If  Spain  finally  approved  the 
treaty  she  transferred  to  us  such  rights  of  sovereignty 
in  the  Philippines  as  she  possessed. 

4.     Could  Spain  Sell  Us  Sovereignty? 

The  two  questions  that  next  arise  are,  How  much 
sovereignty  did  Spain  possess  to  cede?  and,  Whether, 
even  if  she  had  any  actual  sovereignty,  her  cession  of 
it  to  us  gave  us  any  true  or  moral  rights  over  the 
Islauds. 

According  to  the  theory  of  national  rights  established 
by  our  revolution  against  England,  Spain  had  no  sov- 
ereignty in  the  Philippine  Islands.  Her  yoke  was 
arbitrarily  imposed  and  maintained  against  their  will. 
When  there  was  a  gleam  of  hope  of  success  they 
resisted.  There  was  certainly  no  moral  sovereignty  in 
this — it  was  merely  the  sovereignty  of  an  overpower- 
ing brutality. 

But  now  for  the  legal  sovereignty.  Spain  was 
unable  to  conquer  Cuba,  before  the  war  with  us  had 
destroyed  her  fleets  and  crippled  all  her  resources. 
After  that  disaster  is  there  any  cause  to  believe  that 
Spain  could  have  quelled  the  insurgent  Filipinos? 
None  whatever.  The  Filipinos  had  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity of  our  Spanish  war  to  strike  another  blow  for 
freedom.  After  the  war  the  weakened  Spaniards  could 
no  more  have  conquered  them  than  they  previously 
could  conquer  Cuba.  Hence  Spain  had  no  lawful 
sovereignty  in  the  Philippines.  We  may  grant  her  the 
same  supremacy  there  that  she  had  in  Cuba  when  we 


44  SPAIN'S   EMPTY   SOVEREIGNTY. 

took  up  Cuba's  cause,  and  we  then  denied  that  she 
had  an}'  rightful  supremac}'  there.  \'\&  began  war  to 
compel  her  to  take  her  unrighteous  hands  awaj'  from 
that  propert}-  to  which  she  had  lost  all  right.  For  the 
same  reasons  Spain  had  no  sovereignty  over  the  Phil- 
ippines to  sell  or  give  away,  wlierefore  we  could  buy 
none  of  her. 

We,  then,  have  entered  into  tlie  same  relation  to  the 
Philippines  that  Spaiti  stood  in  to  Cuba — the  relatiou 
that  caused  us  to  declare  a  war  of  liberation.  Who 
will  declare  war  against  us  to  liberate  the  Philippines? 
What  great  philanthropic  Povs^er,  in  response  to  the 
claims  of  humanit}',  will  ri.se  to  this  great  moral  crisis 
and  command  us  to  evacuate  the  territory'  that  we  are 
subduing  to  our  new  greed  ?  Either  our  war  for  Cuba  was 
unjust,  or,  on  the  principles  which  v^^e  invoked  to  jus- 
tify it,  we  ought  to  be  driven  out  of  the  Philippines. 
If  we  continue  our  present  Spanish  policj-  there  we 
condemn  our  war  against  Spain  as  groundless  and 
iniquitous. 

We  have  the  answer  to  our  first  question.  Spain 
had  no  sovereigntj'  in  the  Asiatic  Group  to  cede.  She 
could  grant  a  parchment  claim — she  could  ah;o  have 
given  awa}^  as  much  of  Cuba  as  that  any  time  the.se 
years  back. 

As  to  whether  we  could  acquire  a  moral  right  to  this 
territory  by  Spanish  cession,  our  historical  actions  .set- 
tled that  question  beyond  a  peradventure  long  ago. 
When  we  declared  our  independence  of  England  we 
announced  the  principle  that  a  people  who  were  dis- 
satisfied with  the  rule  of  a  nation  claiming  thetn  as  a 
colon)^  might  declare  that  rule  null  and  void  and  ended, 
and  that  if  they  so  declared,  it  was  at  an  end.  This 
principle  declares  that  a  nation  cannot  extend  its 
authority  over  a  people  that  declines  its  authority. 
We  may  now  find  it  convenient  to  repudiate  these 
doctrines — we  are  repudiating  them — but  we  cannot 
do  it  without  in  the  same  act  overthrowing  the  foun- 
datio.is  of  our  own  national  life,  of  our  histor}',  and  of 
our  freedom. 

We  may  be  perfectly  confident  that  whatever  we  now 


OUR   DEBT  TO   THE   FIIvIPINOS.  45 

do  to  these  helpless  Islands  is  making  new  precedent 
for  ourselves,  and  that  if  we  pull  down  the  bulwarks  ot 
justice  and  freedom  by  which  we  have  thus  far  pro- 
tected our  own  liberties,  those  liberties  at  home  will 
next  fall,  and  domestic  tyranny  will  take  the  place  of 
the  independence  established  b}-  the  blood  and  courage 
and  magnanimity  of  our  forefathers.  The  time  has 
come  to  choose,  and  we  must  do  so  with  clear  knowl- 
edge that  the  fate  of  all  we  have  loved  most  in  America 
is  in  our  choice.  As  we  choose  for  the  Filipinos  we 
choose  for  ourselves.  If  we  disregard  their  rights  and 
liberties  such  is  the  stern  retribution  of  nature's  laws 
that  it  is  upon  our  own  necks  we  shall  be  placing  the 
servile  yoke. 

5.     Our  Great  Debt  to  the  Filipinos. 

There  is  no  doubt  of  the  direction  we  have  taken 
thus  far.  Our  course  toward  the  Filipinos  has  been 
one  of  the  utmost  perfidy.  We  had  faithfully 
announced  to  the  whole  world  that  we  harbored  no 
designs  of  conquest  or  aggrandizement  in  going  to  war 
with  Spain.  The  Filipinos  took  us  at  our  word  and 
welcomed  us  as  deliverers.  B}^  our  own  declaration — 
addressed  nominally  to  Cuba  but  universal  in  its  terms 
and  promises — we  were  pledged  to  the  Filipinos  not  to 
violently  subjugate  them  to  ourselves.  It  was  07i  this 
pledge  that  they  received  tis.  If  they  had  believed  our 
promise  to  be  a  lie,  as  it  turned  out  to  be,  what  would 
their  course  have  been  !  It  is  most  certain  that  they 
would  not  have  co-operated  with  us.  They  had  no 
knowledge  whatever  of  us — most  of  them  had  never 
heard  that  we  exist — and  they  could  have  had  no  reason 
to  think  that  our  tyranny  would  be  preferable  to 
Spain's.  They  were  seeking  freedom,  freedom  from  all 
alien  rule.  When  they  learned  anything  about  us  they 
must  have  learned  that  we  were  a  stronger  nation  than 
Spain  and  they  might  have  very  rationally  decided  to 
help  the  Spaniards  against  us,  on  the  ground  that  it 
would  be  easier  for  them  to  drive  the  Spaniards  out 
later  than  to  drive  a  more  powerful  people  out  if  it 
gained  a  footing.     If  they  had  done  this  our  'brilliant' 


46  OUR    DEBT   TO   THE    FILIPINOS. 

career  in  the  Far  East  would  have  been  sadly  tarnished. 
Could  we  have  crushed  Spain  there  if  the  Islanders  had 
opposed  us?  It  would  have  taken  much  of  our  time 
and  blood  and  money,  and  the  end  is  doubtful.  For  if 
the  prospects  had  been  brighter  in  the  Philippines, 
Spain  would  have  held  out  a  little  longer  in  Cuba,  and 
in  a  few  more  days  our  Cuban  army  would  have  been 
helpless  from  disease  and  must  have  suffered  a  terrible 
punishment.  Spain  would  have  annihilated  our  land 
forces.  To  say  that  the  Filipinos  saved  us  from  this 
humiliation  is  not  a  wild  statement.  Since  they  are 
fighting  against  us  now  for  freedom  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  if  they  had  known  our  real  designs  they 
would  have  fought  for  us  then  to  help  us  make  them 
our  subjects. 

If  they  had  not  joined  the  Spaniards  to  keep  us  out, 
there  were  two  other  courses  open:  either  to  fight 
both  the  Spaniards  and  us,  or  to  help  us  to  defeat  the 
Spanish  and  then  to  turn  upon  us.  The  result  in  either 
case  would  have  been  disastrous  to  our  arms  and  pres- 
tige. The  whole  world  would  have  looked  upon  our 
Spanish  war  differently  if  we  had  been  driven  to  fight 
the  natives  before  the  war  closed.  The  one  justification 
of  the  war  having  been  knocked  from  under,  the 
restraints  upon  continental  sympathy  and  interference 
would  have  fallen  off"  and  Spain  would  undoubtedly 
have  found  active  supporters.  There  was  Germany 
aching  for  a  plausible  excuse  to  order  us  out  of  that 
region.  This  would  have  been  a  stunningly  plausible 
excuse — that  on  the  pretense  of  liberating  the  Filipinos 
from  Spain  we  were  killing  them  (which  we  have  since 
done).  It  would  have  been  universally  believed  that 
since  we  were  lying  with  regard  to  the  Philippines,  we 
were  also  lying  with  regard  to  Cuba.  What  support 
could  we  have  then  found  anywhere  ?  England  was 
able  to  give  us  moral  support  on  the  ground  that  we 
were  waging  an  unselfish  fight  for  humanity,  but  if 
this  ground  had  been  withdrawn,  that  support  must 
not  only  have  been  much  weaker  but  Continental  Pow- 
ers would  have  combined  to  disregard  it  and  save  Spain 
from  humiliation.     What  then?     We  must  have  backed 


SUPERLATIVE  TREACHERY.  47 

down  or  been  the  cause  of  a  world  war.  England 
might  or  might  not  have  helped  then.  If  she  had  done 
so  the  war  must  have  been  infinitely  more  terrible  and 
to  no  purpose  but  to  gratify  our  desire  to  steal,  and  to 
establish  the  right  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  to  steal 
everywhere.  If  she  had  declined  to  back  our  hypocrisy 
with  warships  we  should  have  received  an  exceeding 
great  thrashing  and  would  have  exceedinglj'  more  than 
deserved  it. 

To  return  to  our  destinies  in  the  Philippines.  With 
the  Filipinos  hostile,  or  ready  to  attack  us  after  the 
routing  of  the  Spanish,  our  conquest  of  the  islands 
would  not  have  been  the  easy  task  that  it  was.  The 
Filipino  leaders  have  not  shown  themselves  lacking  in 
intelligence.  Had  they  taken  an  attitude  of  enmity  to 
both  combatants,  the  land  battle  at  Manila  would  prob- 
ably have  been  a  draw,  and  both  sides  been  consider- 
ably weakened.  Assuming,  as  we  have  seen  that  we 
justly  may,  that  the  hostility  of  the  natives  to  us  would 
have  deferred  (perhaps  indefinitely)  the  surrender  of 
Santiago,  the  war  would  have  continued  in  the  Philip- 
pines. We  should  have  been  forced  to  send  thousands 
more  troops  to  carry  on  a  recognized  and  admitted  war 
of  conquest,  in  defiance  of  the  moral  judgment  of  man- 
kind, and  under  difl&culties  rendered  distressing  by  the 
native  opposition.  Would  the  war  have  been  ended 
yet  had  this  transpired  ?     It  is  unlikely. 

Moreover,  if  the  real  intentions  of  our  political 
masters  had  been  known  earlier  the  support  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  American  people  would  have  been 
withdrawn  from  the  war.  Americans  would  not  at  that 
time  have  endured  the  thought  of  subduing  the  native 
Filipinos  to  our  benevolent  sway  by  force.  This  would 
have  so  embarrassed  the  Administration  and  Congress 
as  to  oblige  them  to  abandon  the  conquest  of  the  Phil- 
ippines or  to  declare  as  a  finality  that  they  should  be 
free  and  independent  after  the  eviction  of  Spain. 

6.     Superlative  Treachery. 

What  is  the  whole  truth  ?  That  we  owe  the  great- 
est gratitude  to  these  heroic  Islanders,  that  we  have 


48  SUPERLATIVE  TREACHERY. 

shamelessly  denied  that  debt.  Their  faith  in  us  and 
aid  contributed  much  to  the  success  and  speed)'  close 
of  the  war — we  gained  that  faith  and  aid  by  deception. 
No  sooner  was  the  war  done  and  their  usefulness  to  us 
over  than  we  came  out  in  our  true  colors  and  announced 
our  sovereignty,  an  act  that,  committed  earlier,  would 
have  prevented  alliance  and  made  them  our  deadly 
foes.  We  have  shown  by  this  deed  that  honor  does 
not  exist  in  us.  It  is  one  of  those  pieces  of  inconceiv- 
able infamy  which  have  sullied  the  records  of  mon- 
archies and  which  we  abominated  for  a  hundred  proud 
years.  We  can  only  wipe  this  stain  out  by  restoring 
the  usurped  sovereignty  of  these  territories  to  the  peo- 
ple who  dwell  in  them. 

Follow  in  further  detail  the  course  of  American 
hypocrisy  toward  this  unhappj^  people.  Our  Imperial 
and  monarchical  press  may  find  that  it  serves  the  cause 
of  prejudice  to  defame  Aguinaldo,  but  their  tirades 
lose  force  when  we  recall  the  opinions  of  the  British 
press  of  our  own  "Mr."  Washington  a  century  and  a 
quarter  ago.  Moreover,  considering  the  lie  that  we 
have  perpetrated  upon  the  Filipinos,  and  sustained 
with  our  Imperialist  press,  there  is  better  ground  to 
believe  him  than  his  traducers.  And  here  are  declar- 
ations by  him  after  general  Otis  had  transmitted 
McKinley's  proclamation  of  sovereignty  to  the  Archi- 
pelago: 

"General  Otis  calls  himself  in  the  proclamation  referred  to 
'military  governor  of  the  Philippine  Islands,'  and  I  protest  once 
and  a  thousand  times,  and  with  all  the  energy  of  my  soul, 
against  such  authority.  I  solemnly  proclaim  that  I  have  never 
had,  neither  in  Singapore  or  in  Hongkong,  nor  here  in  the 
Philippines,  any  understanding  or  agreement,  neither  by  word 
nor  by  writing,  to  recognize  the  sovereignty  of  America  in  this, 
my  loved  country.  On  the  contrary,  I  say  that  I  returned  to 
these  islands  on  board  an  American  warship  on  the  19th  of  May 
of  last  year  with  the  decided  and  manifest  proposition  to  carry 
on  the  war  with  the  Spaniards,  to  reconquer  our  liberty  and  our 
independence.  .  .  . 

"I  solemnly  protest  in  the  name  of  God,  the  root  and  fount- 
ain of  all  justice  and  of  all  right,  and  who  has  given  me  the 
power  to  direct  my  dear  brothers  in  the  difficult  work  of  our 
regeneration,  against  this  intrusion  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  in  the  sovereignty  of  these  islands.     Equally  I 


supe;rlative  treachery,  49 

protest  iu  the  name  of  all  the  Filipino  people  agaiust  this 
iutrusion  IjecfLUse  wheu  they  gave  me  their  vote  of  confidence, 
electiui);  me,  though  nnworthy,  as  president  of  the  nation,  when 
they  did  this  they  imposed  on  me  the  duty  to  sustain  to  the 
death  their  liberty  and  independence. 

"Lastly,  I  proiest  against  this  act,  so  little  expected,  of  the 
sovereignt}-  of  America  in  these  is'auds,  in  the  uameof  all  that 
has  passed,  of  \viiich  I  have  proofs  in  mj-  possession,  referring 
to  my  relations  with  the  American  authorities,  which  prove  iu 
the  most  unequivocal  manner  that  the  United  States  did  not 
bring  me  from  Hongkong  to  make  war  against  the  Spaniards 
to  benefit  the  Americans,  but  to  help  us  to  gain  our  liberty  and 
independence,  for  the  attainment  of  which  object  the  American 
authorities  promised  me  verbally  their  decided  and  efficacious 
co-operaticu." 

Fraud  is  here  openly  charged  b}'  the  responsible 
leader  of  the  Philippine  people  upon  the  American 
authorities,  and  why  shall  we  not  believe  him?  The 
American  autiiorities  were  then  sailing  briskly  before 
the  full  gust  of  Philanthropy.  Everything  they  did 
was  from  humanit}'  to  the  down-trodden — they  said. 
Our  deep  and  might3-  ruler  had  not  3'et  taken  the  peo- 
ple into  confidence  regarding  his  plans  of  forcible  occu- 
pation or  affectionate  annihilation,  so  that  nothing 
restrained  him  from  playing  a  confidence  game  on  the 
believing  Aguinaldo  to  gain  his  support.  True,  if  the 
president  and  his  friends  did  this  they  were  unconsion- 
able  liars,  and  the  nation  ought  to  hasten  to  set  itself  right 
by  denouncing  the  lie  and  keeping  the  promise  made  or 
implied.  But  they  are  likewise  uncousionable  liars  if 
they  made  the  promise  at  the  time  in  good  faith  and 
have  since  concluded  "for  reasons  of  State"  to  break 
it.  Among  great  Powers  this  kind  of  change  of  mind 
or  lying  would  be  sufficient  cause  for  a  destructive  war, 
and  our  criminal  responsibility  for  the  change  is  not 
diminished  by  the  fact  that  the  Philippines  are  not  a 
great  Power.  As  no  cause  is  apparent  why  at  that 
time  the  pledges  should  not  have  been  made,  we  must 
believe  that  they  were  made;  the  more  so  as  the  natives 
have  since  proved  themselves  willing  to  lay  down  their 
lives  for  that  promised  independence.  This  is  the 
strongest  proof  that  they  would  not  have  aided  us  with- 
out satisfying  assurances  that  the  prize  was  to  be  their 
own  freedom. 


50  SUPERLATIVE  TREACHERY. 

The  Filipino  junta  at  Hongkong  has  made  the  fol- 
lowing incriminating  statement: 

"Information  which  has  leaked  throuj2;h  the  Pinkertons  sent 
here  by  President  McKinley  to  investigate  the  shipments  of 
arms  to  the  Filipinos  shows  that  the  first  shipment  of  arms  to 
Aguinaldo  was  made  by  order  of  the  American  Government 
through  Consul  Wildman,  hence  the  shipment  per  the  Wing 
Foi.  The  American  Government  subsequently  telegraphed  to 
cease  this,  coincident  with  the  change  of  policy  to  annexation. 
Mr.  Wildraan  and  Rear  .\dtniral  Dewey  promised  to  pay,  but 
have  not  yet  paid,  for  a  subsequent  expedition  by  the  Abbey, 
authorized  by  .'Admiral  Dewey,  who  afterward  seized  the  steamer, 
and  she  is  still  held.  Papers  respecting  this  are  now  in  posses- 
sion of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy.  The  protestations  of  Admiral 
Dewey  and  other  Americans  that  they  have  made  no  promises 
are  ridiculous.  In  view  of  these  facts,  let  the  American  people 
iudge  how  the  nation's  word  of  honor  was  pledged  to  the  Fil- 
ipinos and  confided  in  b^^  them  and  violated  by  the  recent 
treachery  of  General  Otis." 

Consider  this  fairly.  Our  policy  did  change  at  a 
certain  time.  At  some  point  McKinley  made  up  his 
mind  to  aim  at  the  retention  of  the  I.slands.  Before 
that  there  was  no  reason  wh}'  we  should  not  treat  the 
Filipinos  with  confidence  and  supply  them  with  arms 
to  assist  us.  We  probably  did  so.  But  after  the 
change  of  heart  there  was  everj^  reason  why  we  should 
not  give  them  arms  which  they  were  likely  to  use  later 
against  us. 

We  can  get  our  minds  to  comprehend  the  stultifica- 
tion of  our  Government  by  putting  Ireland  in  the  place 
of  the  Asiatic  archipelago.  Fancy  us  engaged  in  a  war 
for  humanity's  sake  to  rescue  the  Soudan  from  further 
bloody  British  assizes.  We  have  issued  the  sacred 
manifesto  to  the  world  "that  the  United  States  hereby 
disclaims  anj'  disposition  or  intention  to  exercise  sov- 
ereignty, jurisdiction  or  control,"  and  our  revered  Chief 
Magistrate  has  solemnly  declared  that  forcible  annex- 
ation is  not  to  be  thought  of  because  it  would  be  crim- 
inal aggression.  Relying  on  these  ought-to-be  inviol- 
able pledges,  Ireland  has  risen  to  arms  to  strike  for  her 
own  freedom,  and  has  welcomed  our  forces  to  her  soil 
to  expel  the  English.  We  succeed,  but  instead  ot 
keeping  faith  with  Ireland  we  demand  the  cession  of 
her  from  England  for  a  small  price.     We  announce  that 


OUR   LIE   OF   LOVE.  5I 

our  promises  of  freedom  applied  only  to  the  Soudan, 
and  our  president  issues  a  proclamation  of  American 
militarj'  sovereigntj'  over  Ireland.  We  can  easily 
imagine  what  would  happen.  The  Irish  in  Ireland  and 
the  Irish-Americans  would  stir  up  such  an  uproar 
against  the  astounding  swindle,  that  we  should  be  glad 
to  get  out  of  Ireland  on  au}'  terms,  if  need  be  paying  a 
price  for  our  aggression  and  lie.  And  the  whole  of 
Kurope  would  justly  and  if  need  be  forciblj-  sustain 
Ireland's  demands.  Remote  barbarians  are  in  a  differ- 
ent posture,  and  we  can  boldl}^  bully  them  with 
impunity.  The}-  have  no  powerful  friends  and  we  have 
nothing  to  fear.  But  the  deed  is  as  rascallj^  and  abom- 
inable as  if  we  were  to  deal  Ireland  a  similar  treachery 
in  like  circumstances. 

7.     The  American  Lie  of  Love. 

To  those  who  believe  that  American  honor  is  still 
worth  preserving,  the  language  of  the  main  author  (or 
nerveless  tool,  perhaps)  of  this  perfidy,  William  McKin- 
ley,  is  animating  reading.  He  dilated  upon  the  benev- 
olence of  the  United  States  in  his  proclamation  of  sov- 
ereignty or  war,  informing  the  natives  how  good  it 
would  be  for  some  of  them  to  be  killed  if  they  could 
not  realize  the  ble.ssiug  of  becoming  our  property. 
Tenderly  eloquent  words  are  the  following,  illumined 
by  the  benevolent  murder  of  thousands,  which  followed 
them: 

"Finally,  it  should  be  the  earnest  and  paramount  aim  of  the 
military  administration  to  win  the  confidence,  respect,  and  af- 
fection of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Philippines,  by  assuring  to  them 
in  everj'  possible  way  that  full  measure  of  individual  rights  and 
liberties  which  is  the  heritage  of  free  peoples,  and  by  proving 
to  them  that  the  mission  of  the  United  States  is  one  of  benevo- 
lent assimilation,  substituting  the  mild  sway  of  justice  and 
right  for  arbitrary  rule. 

"In  the  fulfillment  of  this  high  mission,  supporting  the  tem- 
perate administration  of  affairs  for  the  greatest  good  of  the  gov- 
erned, there  must  be  sedulously  maintained  the  strong  arm  of 
authority,  to  repress  disturbance,  and  to  overcome  all  obstacles 
to  the  bestowal  of  the  blessings  of  good  and  stable  government 
upon  the  people  of  the  Philippine  Islands  under  the  free  flag  of 
the  United  States." 


52  OUR   I,IE   OF   LOVE. 

The  terms  in  which  general  Otis  transmitted  the 
president's  ultimatum  will  also  raise  the  pride  of  free- 
dom-preaching Americans.     He  says: 

"In  the  var  against  vSpaiu  the  United  States  farces  came  here 
to  destroy  the  power  of  that  nation  and  to  give  the  blessings  of 
peace  and  individual  freedom  to  the  Philippine  people;  that  we 
are  here  as  friemls  of  the  I''ilipinos  to  protect  them  in  their 
homes,  their  employments,  th:dr  individual  and  religious  lib- 
erty; that  all  persons  who,  either  b_v  active  aid  or  honest 
endeavor,  co  operate  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
to  give  effect  to  the  beneficent  purposes,  will  receive  the  reward 
of  its  support  and  protection.  .  .  . 

"I  am  fully  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
United  States  Government,  while  directing  affairs  generally,  to 
appoint  the  representative  men  now  forming  the  controlling 
element  of  the  Filipinos,  to  civil  positions  of  trust  and  respon- 
sibility, and  it  will  be  my  aim  to  appoint  thereto  such  Filipinos 
as  may  be  acceptable  to  the  supreme  authorities  at  Washington. 

"It  is  also  my  belief  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the  United 
States  Government  to  draw  from  the  Filipino  people  so  nmch 
of  the  military  force  of  the  islands  as  is  possible,  and  consistent 
with  a  free  and  well  constituted  government  of  the  country  and 
it  is  my  purpose  to  inaugurate  a  policy  of  that  character." 

The  'representative  men  of  the  Filipinos'  were  to  be 
bribed  into  acceptance  of  American  authority  by  the 
promise  of  tempting  offices  under  the  United  States. 
Poor,  mean  payment  this  to  a  people  for  resigning  its 
independence,  and  a  contemptible  method  of  gaining 
pos.session  of  that  independence.  Another  application 
of  the  noble  'spoils  of  office'  system  which  our  rulers 
have  for  deltiding  and  tyraimizingover  their  own  coun- 
trymen. And  how  conciliatory  and  inviting  that 
assurance  of  our  Otis  that  the  Philippine  people  would 
some  of  them  be  graciotisly  permitted  to  serve  in  the 
ranks  of  the  militar}^  to  keep  their  country  in  subjection 
to  the  United  States!  This  must  have  been  a  flash  of 
Otis's  own  private  humor  to  help  his  staggering  presis 
dent  out  of  a  ditch,  for  what  does  the  mighty  Secretary 
of  War  soon  after  say  on  this  subject  ?  Pie  speak- 
thus  :* 

"The  natives  of  Cuba,  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines  do  not 
understand  our  purposes  and  wa\s  of  government  sufficiently 
to  admit  of  their  being  made  part  of  our  military  establishment 


♦Contained  in  a  statement  from  the  War  Department  on  the  needed 
army  legislation,  issued  Feb.  19,  1S99. 


OUR   LIE    OF   LOVK.  53 

to  the  extent  of  organizing  them  into  companies,  battalions  and 
regiments  at  once.  Oui"  ofiicers  of  greatest  experience  with 
them  are  of  this  opinion.  In  time  this  could  doubtless  be  done, 
but  it  will  require  educotien.  By  degrees,  a  company  could  be 
given  to  a  regiment  to  be  utilized  as  scouts  and  guides;  further 
on,  a  battalion  could  be  added,  and  in  time  things  working 
well,  regiments  could  be  organized,  but  it  will  take  time,  so 
much  time,  that  for  the  uses  of  the  inmiediate  present  and 
some  time  in  the  future,  they  could  not  be  wisely  counted  as 
affording  anv  considerable  strength  to  the  service,  however 
manv  might  be  provided  for  by  a  Congressional  act.  They  are 
a  possible,  even  probable  factor,  of  the  future,  but  not  for  the 
present." 

What  is  to  be  done  to  reconcile  this  with  general 
Otis's  volatile  as,surances?  Here  there  is  no  chance 
for  mistake  or  double  interpretation.  The  American 
government  promises  something  it  has  no  intention  of 
performing  for  a  very  long  tmie,  if  ever,  in  order  to  get 
firm  military  grasp  on  the  Filipinos.  The  deception 
stands  in  black  and  white.  Otis  says,  Tt  is  ray  pur- 
pose to  inaiigurave  a  policy  drawing  from  the  Filipino 
people  so  much  of  the  military  force  of  the  islands  as 
is  possible.'  The  War  Department  at  Washington 
says,  'For  u.se  as  native  soldiers  the  Filipinos  are  a 
possible,  even  a  probable  factor,  of  the  fuhire,  but  not  for 
the  present:  Wq  defy  the  European  Powers  to  produce 
a  more  barefaced  instance  of  fraud  in  their  own  deal- 
ings with  savages  than  this  masterpiece. 

It  is  not  unfair  to  take  the  president  as  the  leader  of 
the  Imperialist  phrenzy,  and  in  his  utterances  to  esti- 
mate the  sense  and  itnselfi,shness  of  all.  We  find  him 
in  his  Boston  banquet  speech  repeating  the  bathos 
which  is  the  stock  in  trade  of  the  British  expansionists. 
His  langtiage  is  their  language,  and  we  hear  him  bab- 
bling the  phrases  of  Chamberlain,  Salisbury,  Rose- 
bery,  Curzon  and  the  rest.  He  speaks  of  our  flag  in 
the  Philippines,  "where  it  nov/  floats,  the  symbol  and 
assurance  of  liberty  and  justice."  It  floats  over  the 
graves  of  many  dead  Filipinos  who  died  from  accept- 
ing our  a.ssurances  of  liberty  and  justice. 

The  immortal  lie  that  we  have  not  sought  to  confis- 
cate the  Philippine  archipelago  is  reiterated— "It  was 
a  trust  we  have  not  sought;"  God  thrust  it  upon  us, 


54  OUR   LIE   OF   LOVE. 

he  says.     God  was  the  cause  of  our  treachery  to  the 
trusting  natives,  God  compelled  us  to  shoot  them  down 
when   our  dastardly  intentions  were  discovered,  God 
forces  us  against  our  virtuous  wish  to  plant  ourselves 
in  the  Orient  in  order  to  bring  our  mailed  fist  within 
arm's    length    of    China    to   smash    holes    in    her    if 
necessar}'  for  our  sacred  trade.     McKiuley  says:    "Our 
concern  was  not  for  territory'  or  trade  or  empire,  but 
for  people,   whose  interests  and  destiny,   without  our 
willing,   had  been  put  in  our  hands."      "No  imperial 
designs  lurk  in  the  American  mind.     They  are  alien 
to  American  sentiments,  thought  and  purpose.      Our 
priceless  principles  undergo  no  change  under  a  tropical 
sun.  .  .  .     Thej^  go  with  the  fiat:      'Why  read  ye  not 
the  changeless  truth,  the  free  can  conquer  but  to  save. '  " 
It  is  not  pleasant,  but  the  question  must  be  asked: 
Does  this  man  think  that  he  is  talking  to  a  nation  of 
fools?     If  his  words  are  not  mere  re-election  vapor,  he 
is  the  only  man  in  the  United  States  who  is  ignorant 
that  what  is  thrusting  us  into  the  Orient  is  not  God 
but    Greed — greed   for  trade.     Unless   his    mind    has 
been  unsettled  by  greatness  the  pious  McKinley  knows 
as  every  other  American  knows  that  if  our  priceless 
principles   had   not   undergone    a    change    since    we 
started  on   our  errand  of  mercy  to   Cuba,  to  stop  the 
Spaniards  from  shooting  Cubans,   we  should    not  be 
shooting  Filipinos  now  because  they  wanted  the  same 
mercy  at  our  hands  that  we  promised  to  Cuba.     If  we 
must  be  villians  let  us  not  sneak  and  deny  it  and  pub- 
lish a  guinea  pig  prospectus  that  we  have  taken  God 
into   partnership.      There   is    only    one    defense    for 
McKinley,    if  he  is  not  a  deceiver:     he   is   dying  of 
majesty.     This  was  the  fate  of  president  Faure.     A 
French  statesman  and  physician,  noting  the  signs  of 
premature   decay,    said:     "If  M.    Faure   is   not  soon 
turned  out  of  the  Presidency  he  will  die  from  general 
paralysis,     the    effect  of  'folic    de    grandeur.'  "      M. 
Faure  was  so  great  that  no  one  could  speak  to  him 
first.     For  charity's  sake  let  us  believe  that  McKinley 
is  so  great  that  he  can  see  nothing  as  it  is  but  only  as 
his  magnificence  of  mind  shapes  it. 


FOOWNG  AIvL  THE   PEOPLE.  55 

More  reading  of  his  speech  will  not  change  our 
opinion: 

"We  could  not  discharge  the  responsibilities  upon  us  until 
these  islands  became  ours  either  by  conquest  or  treaty.  There 
was  but  one  alternative,  and  that  was  either  Spain  or  the 
United  States  in  the  Philippines.  The  other  suggestion  showed, 
first,  that  thej'  should  be  tossed  into  the  arena  for  the  strife  of 
nations;  or,  second,  be  lost  to  the  anarch}-  and  chaos  of  no  pro- 
tectorate at  all,  and  were  too  shameful  to  be  considered." 

This  is  in  defence  of  our  policy  of  making  ourselves 
masters  of  the  Philippines  and  of  exterminating  the 
portion  of  their  inhabitants  who  will  not  consent.  But 
the  truth  is  quite  different. 

8.     Fooling  All  the  People. 

It  is  one  of  the  recent  novelties  of  free  government 
to  be  obliged  to  defend  the  right  of  the  governed  to  be 
consulted.  Mr.  McKiuley  has  enunciated  and  acted 
upon  the  doctrine  that  we  may  govern  a  people  against 
their  will  according  to  our  own  ideas  of  their  good. 
The  application  of  this  tyrannical  principle  was  the 
cause  of  our  disgraceful  war  to  prevent  the  independence 
of  the  Filipinos.  The  McKinley  statement  of  this 
doctrine  is  the  most  remarkable  and  revolting  expres- 
sion of  political  bombast  of  the  century,  assuming  that 
its  author  is  not  insane.     It  is  this: 

"Did  we  need  their  consent  to  perform  a  great  act  for  human- 
ity ?  We  had  it  in  every  aspiration  of  their  minds,  in  every 
hope  of  their  hearts.  Was  it  necessary  to  ask  their  consent  to 
capture  Manila,  the  capital  of  their  islands?  Did  we  ask  their 
consent  to  liberate  them  from  Spanish  sovereignty  or  to  enter 
Manila  Bay  and  destroy  the  Spanish  sea  power  there?  We  did 
not  ask  these;  we  were  obeying  a  higher  moral  obligation, 
which  rested  on  us,  and  which  did  not  require  anybody's  con- 
sent. We  were  doing  our  duty  by  them,  as  God  gave  us  the 
light  to  see  our  duty,  with  the  consent  of  our  own  consciences, 
and  with  the  approval  of  civilization.  Every  present  obligation 
has  been  met  and  fulfilled  in  the  expulsion  of  Spanish  sov- 
ereignty from  their  islands,  and  while  the  war  that  destroyed  it 
was  in  progress  we  could  not  ask  their  views.  Nor  can  we  now 
ask  their  consent." 

Pardon  must  be  asked  for  comment  on  fallacies  so 
bare  as  these.  Our  forcing  Spain  to  take  herself  out 
of  the  Philippines  was  the  "great  act  of  humanity" 
alluded  to.     To  have  this  done  was  the  mighty  'aspi- 


56  FOOLING   ALL   THE)   PEOPLE. 

ration  and  hope  of  their  hearts,'  and  it  was  this  aspi- 
ration and  hope  that  gave  consent  to  what  we  did,  the 
captnre  of  Manila,  et  cetera.  McKinley  justifies  our 
course  b}'  the  fact  that  we  had  this  tacit  consent.  But 
then,  b}'  his  own  words,  that  consent  extended  no  far- 
ther than  the  expulsion  of  Spain.  Tliat  consent 
explicitly  contradicted  and  forbade  our  taking  Spain's 
place  as  sovereign.  Even  the  consent  to  force  Spain 
out  did  not  exist  if  our  entrance  into  her  shoes  was  to 
be  coupled  with  it.  This  is 'so  undeniable  that  for 
McKinley  to  invoke  God's  sanction  on  our  'great  act' 
after  we  have  gone  forward  and  stultified  that  act  be- 
taking the  very  place  that  Spain  held,  is  raving  blas- 
pheni}'.  "We  were  obeying  a  higher  moral  obligation" 
— was  there  anything  higher  or  moral  in  our  ousting 
Spain  to  seize  her  post  of  sovereignty?  Neither  our 
consierices  nor  civilization  ever  approved  this. 

Mr.  McKinley  knows  well  enough  the  logical  thim- 
ble-rigging in  which  he  is  engaged,  always  supposing 
that  his  mind  has  not  failed.  He  seeks  to  make  a  fact 
which  justifies  one  course  justify  a  course  that  is  the 
antithesis  and  overthrow  of  the  first.  Th.e  Filipinos 
v/anted  freedom:  that  justified  us  in  driving  their 
master  out;  the}'- wanted  freedom;  that  justified  us  in 
becoming  their  master  ourselves.  I_,isten  reverentlj'  to 
the  mind  which  can  evolve  such  marvels.  It  saj'S: 
'Every  present  obligation  has  been  met  and  fulfilled 
in  the  expulsion  of  Spanish  sovereignty  from  the 
islands.'  This  was  true  provided  v/e  ourselves  had 
then  claimed  no  sovereignty  there,  otherwi.se  it  was 
absolutely  false.  In  fact  McKinley  had  already,  before 
making  this  extravagant  speech,  declared  his  sov- 
ereignty and  a  v/ar  had  issued  from  it.  We  had  broken 
our  obligation  to  the  islands  by  replacing  one  sov- 
ereignty with  another,  and  by  not  withdrawing  or 
expelling  our  own  sovereignty. 

The  most  wonderful  logical  break  ot  this  demented 
man  remains  to  be  told.  'While  the  war  that  destroyed 
Spanish  sovereignty  was  in  progress  we  could  not  a.sk 
the  Filipinos'  views,'  he  says.  Very  well,  grant  this. 
"Nor  can  we  ask  it  now,"  he  goes  on. 


i^OOLIXG   AI,L  THE   PSOPLK.  57 

"Indeed,  can  any  one  tell  me  in  what  form  it  could  be  mar- 
shaled and  ascertolnt;!!  until  after  peace  aud  order,  so  necessary 
to  the  reign  of  reason,  shall  be  secured  and  established  ?  A 
reign  of  terror  is  not  the  kind  of  rule  under  which  right  action 
and  deliberate  judgment  are  possible.  It  is  not  a  gootl  time  for 
the  liberator  to  submit  important  questions  concerning  liberty 
and  government  to  the  liberated  while  they  are  engaged  in 
shooting  down  their  rescuers." 

B}^  this,  McKinley  the  Magnificent  informs  us  that 
immediately  after  the  Spanish  war  ceased  the  Filipino 
war  began,  that  there  was  no  time  or  space  between 
them  for  asking  the  views  of  the  Filipinos  on  what  they 
would  like  to  have  us  do.  O  jMcKiuley,  do  you  think 
that  we  are  all  besotted  with  grandeur  like  yourself? 
Do  you  think  that  we  have  forgotten  that  there  was  a 
long  period  between  those  wars  during  which  you  might 
have  'marshaled  and  ascertained'  the  views  of  the 
islanders,  aud  that  you  elected  to  cut  the  knot  and  set- 
tle the  whole  matter  according  to  your  own  views,  by 
proclaiming  yourself  their  sovereign  ?  After  your  car- 
nival of  murder  is  ended  how  else  will  you  learn  their 
views  than  by  doing  as  you  might  and  should  have 
done  prior  to  your  proclamation  ?  You  did  not  wish 
to  give  them  a  chance  to  express  their  preferences,  lest 
they  might  oppose  your  ambitions  for  empire,  and  that 
is  the  secret  of  your  not  inquiring.  That  is  the  secret 
of  your  insolent  manifesto  calling  on  them  to  obey  you. 
And  now,  like  a  coward,  you  would  run  away  to  evade 
even  the  memory  of  this  interval  and  what  happened 
in  it,  pretending  that  the  'misguided  Filipinos,'  as  you 
arrogantly  call  them,  began  to  'shoot  their  rescuers 
down'  as  soon  as  Spain  surrendered,  and  gave  you  no 
time  to  discover  their  will.  But  no  one  will  be  deceived, 
for  all  know  that  after  your  mind,  under  the  dictation 
of  corporation  kings,  was  resolved  to  hold  the  Philip- 
pines as  yours,  there  was  no  intention  on  your  part  of 
consulting  them  in  good  faith.  Some  farce  of  consul- 
tation may  have  gone  through  your  mind  for  a  later 
day — with  their  representative  citizens,  the  whites  and 
big  property  owners,  in  order  to  have  them  perform  the 
mock-ceremony  of  voting  authority  for  acts  already 
done. 


58  HONORABI,E   SOI^Ul'IOI?. 

And  you  Mr.  McKinley ,  who  out  of  a  state  of  confidence 
and  repose  had  brought  a  reign  of  terror  and  destruction 
in  those  islands,  equalling  and  surpassing  the  terror  and 
destruction  under  Spain,  could  say   to   the  American 
people,  "It  is  not  a  good  time  for  the  liberator  to  sub- 
mit important  questions  concerning  liberty  and  govern- 
ment to  the  liberated  while  they  are  engaged  in  shoot- 
ing down  their  rescuers." !     Who  was  shooting  the  res- 
cued down?      What  did  the    'liberators'    deserve   for 
turning  into  masters  and  coercers  but  to  be  shot  down  ? 
You,   McKinley,  having   by   voluntary    unlawful   act 
made  the  blood  of  two  races  flow,  arouse  unbounded 
compassion  for  your  suflFering  when  in  stately  melan- 
choly you  close  your  comfortable  Boston  feast  by  allus- 
ion to  the  blood-stained  trenches  around  Manila,  where 
'every  red  drop,  whether  from  the  veins  of  an  American 
soldier  or  a  misguided  Filipino,  is  anguish  to  my  heart.' 
The  effusive  sophistries  of  the  national  executive, 
whether  the  result  of  aberation  or  dishonesty,  have  a 
public   effect.     They    impose   on  many,  for   raw  and 
brutal  though  they  are,  the  people  have  allowed  this 
executive  to  continue  his  course.     It  can  only  follow 
that  the  people  are  themselves  either  dull  or  devoid  of 
conscience.     Is  a  people  that  follows  such  lead,  accepts 
as  guileless  truth  a  shower  of  feathery  fairy  tales,  takes 
a  man  seriously  who  says  twice  two  are   five,  because 
he  has  political  authority,  is  such  a  people  any  better 
in  mind  or  character  than  its  deceiver?     The  American 
people  have  changed  since  the  ring  of  Expansion  was 
put  in  their  nose.     The  presence  of  this  ring  is  public 
advertisement  that  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  has  already 
lost  independence.     To  a  people  of  independence  and 
nerve  a  president  could  not  have  poured  out  a  speech 
of  bilge-water.     The  most  hopeless  sign  for  America  is 
that  that  speech  was  not  repudiated  instantly  by  the 
whole  continent. 

9.     The   Honorable    Solution   of   the    Problem. 

What  ought  we  to  have  done,  and  what  ought  we  to 
do  ?     We  ought  to  have  signified  unequivocally  to  the 


HONORABLE    SOLUTION.  59 

Filipinos  that  we  had  no  intention  of  becoming  their 
sovereign  in  any  form.  As  soon  as  Spain  surrendered 
we  should  have  made  this  irrevocable  disclaimer.  It 
cannot  be  said  that  this  would  have  been  impossible  or 
impolitic,  for  the  American  Peace  Commissioners  had 
instructions  from  the  Administration  to  require  the 
cession  of  the  island  of  Luzon.  "The  instructions  of 
the  President  when  we  started  out  were  to  take 
Luzon,"  admitted  Mr.  Frye,  one  of  the  peace  commis- 
sioners, when  cross-examined  in  the  Senate  by  Mr. 
Vest.  This  developed  into  a  demand  for  the  whole 
Philippine  group.  Then  was  the  time  to  have  pledged 
ourselves  to  make  the  entire  archipelago  free.  Con- 
gress ought  to  have  taken  this  stand  and  compelled  the 
shilly-shallying  president  to  make  it.  Congress  ought 
to  have  pledged  itself  and  the  country  before  the 
departure  of  the  peace  commission  that  all  territory 
obtained  from  Spain  by  cession  should  be  made  free  and 
independent. 

It  was  also  politic.  We  have  labored  from  the  first 
under  the  suspicion  that  the  disinterestedness  of  our 
demands  from  Spain  did  not  ring  true.  We  could  have 
removed  the  suspicion  b}^  Congressional  declaration 
that  we  should  hold  none  of  the  territory  as  ours,  and 
much  friction  would  have  been  saved.  We  were  pre- 
vented from  this  honorable  course  by  the  conspiracy  of 
the  president  to  keep  everything  he  could  get,  and  by 
the  pitiful  servility  of  Congress  to  the  president's  orders. 
The  president  listened  to  corporate  commands,  trans- 
mitted them  to  congress,  and  congress  obeyed. 

If  congress  had  pledged  that  all  acquired  territory 
should  be  free,  our  dastardly  war  to  enslave  the  Phil- 
ippines would  have  been  averted.  McKinley,  being 
properly  muzzled  by  congressional  act,  could  not  have 
issued  his  aggrandizing  proclamation  of  peaceable  sov- 
ereignty or  forcible  conquest.  Our  course  would  have 
been  plain  from  the  beginning:  we  should  have  aided 
the  Cubans,  Porto  Ricans,  and  Filipinos  to  set  up  inde- 
pendent governments  of  their  own  and  should  have 
been  spared  the  fatal  complications  which  the  aggres- 
sion of  the  president  has  loaded  upon  us.     The  ques- 


6o  HONORABLE    SOLUTION. 

tions  of  Imperialism,  Kxpausion  and  Militarism  would 
not  have  been  raised  at  all. 

What  should  our  relation  to  the  independent  nations 
have  been  after  we  had  established  them  ?  If  v\'e  could 
have  trusted  ourselves  not  to  be  seized  with  the  grab- 
bing epileps}',  a  simple  guardianship  to  extend  no  far- 
ther than  keeping  other  Powers  off  and  assisting  the 
native  governments  to  police  themselves  as  rhey  learned 
self-governing  forms,  would  have  ansv/ered.  This  was 
one  course.  It  was  ruled  out  because  we  verj^ 
earl)^  showed  that  we  could  not  trust  ourselves  in  the 
presence  of  property-  without  itching  to  steal  it,  and 
that  whatever  v.'e  assumed  to  protect  in  the  mask  of 
philanthrop5'  would  soon  be  transformed  iiUo  our  pri- 
vate property  by  circumvention  or  force. 

But  another,  fur  wiser,  course  was  open — one  which 
preserv^ed  us  from  the  evils  of  Imperialism  and  secured 
to  those  concerned  a  higher  good  than  our  single  guar- 
dianship. We  should  have  ibrmed,  and  should  now 
form,  with  Great  Britian,  Switzerland  and  perhaps 
Germany,  a  Joint  Protectorate  over  the  Philippines, 
upon  a  plan  binding  all  to  the  two  simple  principles  of 
protecting  the  islands  from  predatory  powers,  and 
assisting  the  free  government  constituted  by  the  inhab- 
itants to  preserve  internal  order. 

I  name  Switzerland  because  she  represents  advanced 
ideas  of  freedom,  justice  and  democracy.  Having  no 
temptation  to  avaricious  aggrandizement  she  would 
bring  into  the  counsels  of  the  protectorate  elevated 
principles  and  impartial  judgments. 

There  are  decisive  advantages  in  this  method.  A 
single  nation  might  veer  over  to  selfishness — it  nearly 
always  does — but  several  nations  will  act  as  checks  on 
one  another  and  adhere  to  the  purpose  of  advancing 
the  interests  of  their  charge. 

No  private  motives  could  be  suspected  and  the  joint 
protectorate  would  enjoy  the  full  confidence  of  the 
natives;  its  suggestions  would  be  honored  and  the 
progress  of  the  people  be  as  rapid  as  it  is  in  them  to 
make. 

If  there  is  any  foundation  for  the  belief  of  some  that 


HONORABLE    SOLUTION.  6l 

a  reign  of  anarchy  would  follow  if  the  natives  were 
left  alone,  the  misfortune  would  be  prevented  by  the 
combined  powers.  If  the  Filipinos  knew  that  internal 
wars  would  not  be  allowed  they  would  have  little 
inclination  to  attempt  them  and  would  learn  to  govern 
themselves  without  the  sword.  The  single  nation 
makes  the  internal  disturbances  of  a  dependency  the 
signal  for  taking  more  authority  to  itself,  where  a  real 
protector  would  stand  in  the  firm  and  friendly  relation 
of  arbitrator,  striving  to  make  the  combatants  feel  the 
consequences  of  their  folly,  without  robbing  the  nation 
of  liberty. 

The  system  would  be  an  experiment  before  the  world 
in  the  best  methods  of  advancing  backward  races.  All 
the  trials  made  by  single  nations  are  of  small  import- 
ance because  the  commercial  interests  of  the  governing 
people  shoulder  every  other  aim  out.  But  the  results 
obtained  by  an  honest  experiment  v.'ould  be  so  con- 
vincing that  their  adoption  in  all  colonies  would  follow. 

The  United  States  would  be  saved  from  Imperialism. 
No  increase  either  of  army  or  navy  would  be  required, 
the  forces  of  the  combined  powers  being  equal  to  any 
emergency.  But  the  existence  of  the  combination 
would  prevent  an  emergency  from  arising. 

We  .should  indicate  to  the  world  our  continued  and 
strengthened  adherence  to  the  principles  of  peace,  our 
disgust  at  the  orgies  of  selfishness  of  European  Powers 
in  Sieir  colonial  affairs,  which  threaten  to  set  the  whole 
world  in  a  blaze  of  war. 

We  should  clear  our  skirts  of  deception.  Duty  is 
being  made  to  carry  the  burden  of  rascally  selfishness, 
and  the  way  out  of  the  dilemma  for  the  nation  is  a  plan 
extricating  duty  from  selfishness.  Accepting  as  true 
that  the  people  mainly  want  to  follow  duty  and  that 
the  commercial  promoters  are,  by  sharp  practice,  mak- 
ing them  think  that  duty  cannot  be  performed  without 
expansion  and  imperialism,  the  one  necessary  thing  is 
to  drive  these  tricksters  out  of  their  cover  and  unmask 
them.  A  policy  that  meets  in  full  all  the  philanthropic 
demands  that  they  can  urge,  and  yet  without  imperial- 
ism, one  that  does  all  the  good  that  can  be  done  for  the 


62  HONORABLE    SOLUTION. 

Filipinos  and  yet  without  expansion,  leaves  their 
deceptive  selfishness  without  a  veil:  and  joint  protection 
is  such  a  policy.  Having  this  to  advocate  we  know 
that  any  who  oppose  it,  still  demanding  annexation  or 
sole  American  guardianship,  have  a  private  axe  to 
grind.  We  then  have  to  face  the  proposition  of  com- 
mercial greed,  without  religion  or  morality  to  hide  its 
sins,  and  the  great  mass  of  upright  Americans  will 
give  it  the  doom  it  deserves. 

It  will  cease  then  to  be  incumbent  upon  any  one,  in 
realit}'  or  imagination,  to  support  a  measure  that  con- 
tains the  seeds  of  national  destruction.  From  no  side 
could  suspicion  of  dishonor  or  failure  to  realize  the 
highest  conception  of  duty  be  brought  against  the 
United  States,  and  the  principles  and  institutions  of 
this  country  would  remain  firmly  anchored  to  the  rock 
of  freedom. 

What  now  remains  of  the  favorite  defences  of  the 
wrong  we  have  been  doing?  Absolutely  nothing.  It 
is  said  by  those  who  have  put  us  into  the  hole  that  we  had 
no  honorable  way  but  to  go  into  the  hole,  by  taking 
the  Philippines.  Thc}^  summon  as  the  proof  that 
every  other  course  was  'not  to  be  thought  of,'  and  they 
enumerate  the  following  possible  courses:  To  turn  the 
islands  back  to  Spain;  To  give  them  to  some  other 
power  or  powers;  or,  To  leave  them  to  themselves,  a 
prey  to  domestic  anarchy  and  seizure  by  the  predatory 
nations  of  Europe.  Since  we  had  to  keep  them,  they 
say,  we  had  to  conquer  them,  and  that  made  conquer- 
ing them  honorable.  But  since  there  was  another  hon- 
orable course  we  did  not  have  to  keep  them,  and  there- 
fore we  did  not  have  to  conquer  them,  and  the  proof 
that  it  was  honorable  to  conquer  them  is  destroyed. 

But  the  disingenuousness  of  our  imperialist  govern- 
ment will  not  bear  scrutiny,  even  supposing  that  a  joint 
protectorate  had  been  impossible;  for  a  formal  pro- 
tectorate by  us  which  gave  the  islands  independent 
government  and  freedom,  warning  other  Powers  off" and 
lending  our  aid  to  keep  the  internal  peace  and  help  the 
internal  development  of  a  nation  recognized  by  us  as 
free,  would  have  borne  no  resemblance  to  the   pro- 


HONORABLB   SOIvUTlON.  63 

tectorate  of  possession  which  presidential  majesty  with 
the  whipped  consent  of  congress  is  going  on  to  estab- 
lish. This  kind  of  protection  is  carefully  ignored  by 
imperialists,  as  if  it  were  unimaginable.  Their  studied 
silence  exposes  the  indecency  of  our  position.  They 
want  a  protectorate  that  contains  sovereignty  and  to 
extenuate  the  usurpation  and  shame  of  it  they  call  it  a 
state  of  qicasi  sovereignty. 

It  is  an  awkward  position  to  be  in,  that  of  slaying 
men  to  make  them  love  us.  What  ought  a  great  nation 
to  do  in  such  circumstances  ?  Go  on  slaying  to  prove 
that  we  cannot  be  made  to  back  down  even  when  we 
are  wrong?  That  is  about  where  our  Filipino  war 
puts  us.  The  theory  of  International  Force  is  that 
when  a  nation  has  begun  a  disgraceful  row  without 
color  of  cause,  it  must  keep  on  and  whip  its  unoffend- 
ing adversary  or  lose  caste  and  respect.  This  is  the 
creed  of  the  district  bully.  What  does  he  know  or 
care  about  justice?  Let  us  take  another  case.  A 
school  master  begins  to  thrash  a  pupil,  and  in  the  midst 
of  it  discovers  that  the  boy  is  not  guilty.  If  he  is  a 
brute  and  a  fool  he  goes  on  with  the  whipping,  saying 
that  if  he  should  stop  before  the  job  was  done  the  boy 
wouldn't  respect  or  love  him.  We  are  performing 
exactly  that  tomfoolery  in  the  Philippines.  Our  rulers 
think  that  they  need  a  thrashing  on  general  principles 
to  make  them  understand  that  we're  boss.  It  is  all 
false  and  ridiculous. 

Being  in  the  midst  of  a  bad  war  which  our  chiefs 
undertook  for  conquest  and  personal  ambition,  the  right 
and  honorable  way  is  to  bring  the  business  to  a  sudden 
end  by  acknowledging  that  we  are  wrong,  indemnifying 
the  Filipinos  for  the  evil  we  have  done  them,  and  giv- 
ing them  self-government  and  freedom.  And  there  is 
no  other  honorable  course.  We  can  afford  to  do  it 
because  we  are  strong.  To  say  that  it  would  be  cow- 
ardly is  preposterous.  What  we  are  doing  is  the  cow- 
ardly thing:  to  think  of  such  foulness  as  we  are  trans- 
acting to  those  poor  harmless  savages  makes  a  true 
American  bitterly  ashamed  of  his  country !  It  is  mean- 
ness incarnate.     We  can  never  hold  up  our  heads  as 


64  HONORABI.E    SOLUTION. 

we  have  done.  The  vile  spot  will  not  wash  out,  it  is 
there  indelibly,  a  red  cruel  stain  of  damnable  infamy. 
Every  da}'  that  the  war  goes  on  deepens  our  crime  and 
shame.  Talk  of  cowardice!  A  man  who  caught  an 
innocent  boy  and  skinned  him  would  be  no  worse  than 
we  are  in  this  sublimely  wanton  ruffianism.  The  peo- 
ple ought  to  rise  in  retributive  indignation  and  compel 
the  puppets  at  Washington  to  stop  this  thing.  There 
is  no  hope  unless  they  do,  the  craven  congress  has 
adjourned,  and  unless  the  people  thunder  their  rage 
and  shame,  and  surge  over  the  Administration  pol- 
troonery with  an  inflexible  will  that  this  brutality  shall 
cease,  it  will  drag  on  to  lower  and  lower  depths  of 
moral  damnation. 

Better  America  ought  to  be  heard  now.  The  poli- 
ticians have  had  their  fling,  selfishness  has  steered  the 
nation,  they  have  guided  us  into  the  crater  of  a  vol- 
cano. Now  let  the  voice  of  American  citizens  speak. 
Now  let  those  who  believe  that  we  have  a  higher  des- 
tiny than  to  rob  and  steal  and  kill  in  the  name  of  God 
and  lyove,  come  forward  and  take  the  helm  out  of  the 
hands  of  these  wreckers  of  American  traditions,  Ameri- 
can honor,  American  justice,  and  American  liberty. 
Down  with  the  leaders  that  have  betrayed!  It  is  the 
great  soul  of  the  American  people  alone  that  can  save 
us. 


TfilS  IS  A  PHOTOCOPY  REPRODUCTION 


It  is  made  in  compliance  with  copyright  law 
and  produced  on  acid-free  archival 

book  weight  paper 

which  meets  the  requirements  of 

ANSI/NISO  Z39.48-1992 

Permanence  of  Paper  for  Printed  Library  Materials 


Preservation  photocopying 

by 

The  University  of  Connecticut  Libraries 

Preservation  Department 

2001 


Univ^rsfU'  of  Qojin<^cticut 

t '        \  ,i£ibranes 


"7  O 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


39153027627936 


